1. travel
2. tourist destinations
3. australia and new zealand

Parliamentary Debates
(HANSARD)
THIRTY-NINTH PARLIAMENT
FIRST SESSION
2014
LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY
Wednesday, 22 October 2014
Legislative Assembly
Wednesday, 22 October 2014
THE SPEAKER (Mr M.W. Sutherland) took the chair at 12 noon, and read prayers.
HON DAVID KINGSLEY MALCOLM, AC, QC
Condolence Motion
MR C.J. BARNETT (Cottesloe — Premier) [12.01 pm] — without notice: I move —
That this house records its sincere regret at the death of the Honourable David Kingsley Malcolm, AC,
QC, and tenders its deep sympathy to his family.
I rise today to inform the house of the sad passing of the Honourable David Malcolm, AC, QC, former
Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Western Australia and Lieutenant-Governor, and quite simply
a magnificent Western Australian.
David Kingsley Malcolm was born in Bunbury on 6 May 1938. He attended Guildford Grammar School and the
University of Western Australia, and was awarded a Rhodes Scholarship in 1960. His academic career at
Oxford University was stellar. He was accorded the rare honour of having been appointed an honorary fellow of
his Oxford college, Wadham College.
Before serving as Chief Justice, David Malcolm was a deputy counsel for the Asian Development Bank, and one
of Western Australia’s most prominent Queen’s Counsel. On 26 May 1988 he was appointed Chief Justice of the
Supreme Court of Western Australia on the retirement of the widely respected Sir Francis Burt. Chief Justice
Malcolm was a person of enormous energy and enthusiasm, and he coupled his unrivalled distinction as a judge
with extraordinary further service to the community. In 1990 he also became Lieutenant-Governor of Western
Australia, and devoted his time to countless charities and institutions, including the University of Western
Australia, the International Commission of Jurists, the Special Air Service Resources Trust, Anglicare, rugby
union and Australian Rules football in this state, and numerous medical research and treatment charities.
His term as Chief Justice was noteworthy not simply for his enormous capacity for work and the stellar example
he set to his fellow judges, but also for the considerable changes and improvements he made to the workings of
the court and to the administration of justice. As Chief Justice, David Malcolm chaired the Western Australian
electoral distributions in 1994 and 2003. Not content to be a figurehead, he took a keen and perceptive interest in
the entire redistribution process. In the 2003 final report of the Electoral Distribution Commissioners, he did not
hesitate to call for changes to the Electoral Distribution Act to reflect population realities. His impartiality was
respected in this, the most sensitive area of the political process.
David Malcolm is widely acknowledged as one of the great advocates to have been produced by the profession
in this state. He received the distinction of having been made an honorary bencher of one of the ancient
English Inns of Court, Lincoln’s Inn. He was made a Companion of the Order of Australia and was
Western Australian Citizen of the Year in 2000. Chief Justice Malcolm received many awards during his career
and earned great respect during his time as Chief Justice, receiving great acclaim from the legal profession on his
retirement on 7 February 2006—only just short of 18 years. He was one of the longest serving Chief Justices in
Western Australian history. At his farewell, the then Attorney General, Hon Jim McGinty, commented on the
landmark judgement that David Malcolm had handed down in the appeal of John Button, a high-profile case in
which a manslaughter conviction was quashed more than 38 years after the event. He later became professor of
law at the University of Notre Dame Australia, Fremantle, and imparted great wisdom and knowledge to those in
pursuit of a legal profession.
On behalf of the Western Australian Parliament, I offer the deepest condolences of the state to David’s wife,
Kaaren, and daughter, Manisha, and to all members of the family. Kaaren and Manisha are in the Speaker’s
gallery, and on a more personal note Lynn and I extend our sympathy. I knew David Malcolm, obviously in his
official role and in my role over the years, but I particularly got to know him better through the Special Air
Service Resources Trust that he chaired, and also as a member of my electorate. David and Kaaren literally lived
down the hill a couple of blocks away from our home. He was a wonderful person. It is an absolute privilege to
have known him. He made an enormous contribution to this state and to the justice system. Again, I offer my
sympathy to Kaaren and Manisha.
MR M. McGOWAN (Rockingham — Leader of the Opposition) [12.05 pm]: I also join with the government
in acknowledging the life and times of the Honourable David Kingsley Malcolm, AC, QC—a marvellous
Western Australian whom I personally found to be a pure gentleman, a person of great intellect and great
friendliness, and always an interesting person to deal with and talk to.
7730
[ASSEMBLY — Wednesday, 22 October 2014]
David Malcolm was born in 1938 and passed away on 20 October of this year. He came from Bunbury and was
educated at Guildford Grammar School. He was a Rhodes scholar from Western Australia in 1960. His wife,
Kaaren, and daughter, Manisha, are in the gallery today and, from all I have read, were a wonderful and very
close family. At one point in time, tragically, David lost an adopted son who was a sailor in the Royal Australian
Navy. He passed away maybe 20 or so years ago. I was on duty that night in—I think—the early 1990s and
I recall receiving a signal that came in that indicated this had taken place and having to be responsible for
ensuring the information was passed along to Mr Malcolm.
He was a prominent QC and he appeared before the Privy Council of the United Kingdom as a barrister. He
served as Chief Justice from 1988 until 2006; an extraordinarily long period of 18 years, and when he left office
he was the longest serving Chief Justice in the country. He was the first to be appointed directly to the office
from the ranks of the practising profession since the third Chief Justice, Sir Alexander Onslow, was appointed in
1883. He was the first Chief Justice of Western Australia to go on talkback radio—a very brave man! He
pioneered the process of having Aboriginal liaison officers attached to the courts; he chaired the Law Reform
Commission in the 1980s; he chaired the Biennial Conferences of Chief Justices of Asia and the Pacific; he
chaired the Advisory Board, Crime Research Centre of the University of Western Australia; he was a member of
the University of Western Australia Senate; and he chaired the board of trustees of the Special Air Service
Resources Trust.
I was listening to ABC radio yesterday and heard a gentleman, who was a friend of former Chief Justice
Malcolm, asked, “Why was Chief Justice Malcolm never appointed to the High Court of Australia?” Perhaps he
did not want to leave Western Australia and move to Canberra, which would be entirely understandable. On the
other hand, the gentleman said that Chief Justice Malcolm as a young man had at one point unsuccessfully stood
for Parliament as a Liberal Party candidate. Therefore, in the days of the federal Labor government of the 1980s
and 1990s perhaps there was some suspicion and it did not wish to appoint him to the High Court. Then when
the Liberal government came in in the mid-1990s, its view was that he was too left wing! Perhaps it was also not
too keen on appointing him to the High Court! However, my view, which I believe is the view of the profession
in this state, is that he would have made an outstanding justice of the High Court and perhaps Chief Justice of
Australia. He told university students in 1997 that his motto was twofold. He said, “Take your work seriously,
take any office you hold seriously, but don’t make the mistake of taking yourself too seriously. Secondly,
however difficult and challenging the office or the task, find a way to make it fun. If it’s not fun, it’s not worth
it”.
In 1990, he told the state’s daily newspaper, The West Australian, in relation to his job as Chief Justice, that
“the work is unrelenting and the consequences of mistakes are mind-boggling”. But, as we all know, that did not
stop him from heaping more and more demands upon himself, as is clear from that list of activities that he
undertook while Chief Justice and subsequent to being Chief Justice.
David Malcolm served as Lieutenant-Governor of Western Australia from 1990 until 2009. He then became
Professor of Law at Notre Dame University in Fremantle.
At Chief Justice David Malcolm’s retirement, he was lauded by the then Attorney General, Jim McGinty. Also at
his retirement, the current Chief Justice of Western Australian, Hon Wayne Martin, who also was appointed
directly from the legal profession, said the following about David Malcolm —
Many of the changes and reforms introduced or overseen by your Honour have already been mentioned.
Those I would like to single out for particular mention include the use of victim impact statements, the
videotaping of evidence of children and vulnerable witness, gender bias and Indigenous issue training
for Judges, the publication of sentencing summaries, the introduction of alternate dispute resolution as
a standard part of the processes of the Court, the creation of the Court of Appeal, the use of a variety of
innovative measures, including blitzes, to address the backlog of cases, and the occasional invitation of
the electronic media into the courtroom.
Chief Justice Malcolm was a fine West Australian. He was a loving husband and father. He was a giant intellect.
He put in place a range of reforms to the legal system of this state. He always had a deep and abiding concern for
not just the state but those people less fortunate than himself. He carried that through in his practice of the law
and in his activities as Chief Justice, and this state owes him a great debt of gratitude. I would like to close by
once again passing on my regards to his family.
MR T.K. WALDRON (Wagin — Minister for Sport and Recreation) [12.12 pm]: I rise today to support this
condolence motion on behalf of the National Party and to recognise the life and great contribution of
Hon David Malcolm, AC, QC. As we have heard already from the Premier and from the Leader of the
Opposition, his professional achievements have been extraordinary, from Rhodes Scholar to
Lieutenant-Governor of Western Australia, and to Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Western Australia. But
it is also his great passion, energy and enthusiasm in serving his community that singles him out as a great
Western Australian.
[ASSEMBLY — Wednesday, 22 October 2014]
7731
It is clear from what we have heard today that David Malcolm not only set a great example during his term as
Chief Justice but also worked hard to change and improve the workings of the court for the better. Of course, his
landmark judgement in the appeal of John Button is well known, as has been mentioned today. That is a case that
I followed closely and with great interest.
I was fortunate to meet David Malcolm. I met him on only a couple of occasions, but I have to say he left a great
impression on me as a person of great intellect and quality. Above all, he was so friendly. I remember that on the
two occasions when I met him, we talked about sport on both those occasions. That is what I remember
personally.
On behalf of the National Party, I would like to convey our very sincere condolences to David’s family and
friends.
MR J.R. QUIGLEY (Butler) [12.13 pm]: I am very pleased to stand this afternoon to join with the government
and other members of this chamber in this condolence motion. The late Hon David Kingsley Malcolm, AC, QC,
passed from this world earlier this week. I note that his widow, Kaaren, and daughter, Manisha, are with us this
afternoon in the gallery, so I would like to start by offering my deepest and sincerest condolences to Kaaren and
Manisha.
As has been already stated, David Kingsley Malcolm, AC, QC, was born in Bunbury in 1938. No-one would
have known at the time of his birth that this was a once-in-a-generation person who was entering the community
of Western Australia. In 1950, he undertook the academic scholarship test for Guildford Grammar School while
a student in Bunbury. He passed that test with flying colours, and he entered the student community at
Guildford Grammar the following year. By the time he had reached the end of his scholastic career at
Guildford Grammar, he was captain of that school.
He then undertook legal studies at the Law School of the University of Western Australia, where he excelled
again, graduating with first-class honours. He was also known for his sporting prowess, and for his first three
years at law school he played Australian Rules football, fortuitously changing to rugby union in his final year,
because he was named a Rhodes scholar and went to Oxford University, where, as the Premier has already
mentioned, he excelled in his studies and became an honorary fellow of his college, and also played for
Oxford University in its rugby union team. Later in life on social occasions, when we would reminisce about
different things, it was clear that his time on the rugby field at Oxford University was a highlight of his young
life and it brought him much pleasure to remember those years.
As has been said, David Malcolm was appointed straight from the legal profession to the position of
Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Western Australia. He was only the second person to have done that. As
the Leader of the Opposition has said, when Sir Alexander Onslow was appointed from the legal profession to be
Chief Justice, there was only one Supreme Court judge, so a person who was appointed as a Supreme Court
judge would become the Chief Justice. David Malcolm was just such a standout jurist that it was obvious that he
would go to the Supreme Court, and it was a very wise choice to make him Chief Justice.
Just to reminisce a bit upon his legal career, after graduating from Oxford, as has been mentioned, he was
employed for three years as deputy counsel for the Asian Development Bank in Manila, and there started
a lifelong association with LAWASIA. Right until the time of his death, he was involved with LAWASIA. He
was chair of the Conference of Chief Justices of Asia and the Pacific of LAWASIA and distinguished himself in
that role.
He was, of course, a jurist of national significance—not just important to Western Australia, but to all of
Australia. Indeed, in January 1998, he was inducted as only the fourth life member of the Australian Bar
Association. The only other life members who have been appointed are Sir Gerard Brennan, who was a former
Chief Justice of the High Court of Australia, and Mary Gaudron and Michael McHugh, who were justices of the
High Court. So, by the time he was inducted as a life member, each of those other life members had served on
the High Court, one of those as Chief Justice.
When David Malcolm was practising law—I remember this well—if a red hot commercial dispute was on, each
side would rush to try to secure the services of David Malcolm, QC as their lead counsel. Those who were
second to the post and did not have the advantage of hiring David would invariably engage an eastern states’ silk
to oppose him, because his ability and reputation was so high and well regarded.
This Parliament should also recognise in this condolence motion—as also recorded in The Australian Law
Journal of 1996—that he worked very hard in the judicial conference of LAWASIA to establish the principles
and tenets of judicial independence. These were agreed to in 1995 by LAWASIA, the Law Association for Asia
and the Pacific, and adopted by Chief Justices from 20 nations at the sixth conference of Chief Justices of Asia
and the Pacific Region held in Beijing. Subsequently, in Manila in 1997, the statement on judicial independence
was further accepted by a total of 32 countries in the Asia–Pacific region. David Kingsley Malcolm, AC, QC,
not only achieved pre-eminence in the legal profession in Western Australia, he was a significant figure in the
7732
[ASSEMBLY — Wednesday, 22 October 2014]
Australian legal profession and beyond, including the Asian sphere of its legal profession. He was very highly
regarded throughout Australia and Asia.
Mention has been made of David Malcolm’s achievements in reforming and his innovation within the
Supreme Court of Western Australia. We spoke yesterday of the passing of Gough Whitlam, QC. It was
reflected that he came into Australian politics and was an agent for change, and Australia was never the same
after his Prime Ministership. The same can be said of the late David Malcolm, AC, QC. He came to the Supreme
Court in 1988 when there were 10 judges on the bench. As David himself reflected when he was inducted as
Chief Justice, there was not a fax machine in the court and there were 10 judges. By the time he retired as
Chief Justice, there were 20 judges on the bench. The usage of electronic transcripts and the like, as Mr Speaker
knows, became rather commonplace in the Supreme Court. It was noted at his retirement in 1994 that the trial
and appeal of the late Laurie Connell was the first time that electronic transcripts and electronic exhibits had
been used. He promoted that and it has become common course in the Supreme Court today. Mention has also
been made of David’s innovation in bringing to the court Aboriginal liaison officers and court information
officers so that members of the public and the media can access information out of court. It opened the court up
to the public of Western Australia.
David Malcolm was of course the longest serving Chief Justice in Australia and a former Lieutenant-Governor
of Western Australia. He served this community magnificently in those roles for the best part of 18 years. Before
that, in his engagement with and patronage of community groups, he has served Western Australia throughout
his life magnificently. We all rise this afternoon in this chamber to give thanks for the life of David Kingsley
Malcolm, AC, QC, and to extend once again to his widow and daughter our deepest and sincerest condolences.
As a Parliament we jointly express gratitude that such a person stepped forward to provide Western Australia
with such leadership and service.
MR J.H.D. DAY (Kalamunda — Leader of the House) [12.23 pm]: I am pleased to also have the opportunity
to make some brief comments during this condolence motion for the late Hon David Kingsley Malcolm. I extend
my condolences and sympathy to Kaaren and Manisha, and to David’s wider family.
It is not surprising, given the heights to which David Malcolm rose in the legal profession and the judiciary in
Western Australia, that he had a very strong academic record. As we have heard, he was a student and boarder at
Guildford Grammar School from 1950 to 1955. Not surprisingly, he showed early signs of leadership, having
been the house captain of School house where he boarded, and school captain in 1955. He was awarded various
scholarships and a significant number of academic prizes whilst at Guildford Grammar School; in fact,
14 academic prizes. He was also a member of the school choir from 1951 to 1955 and was involved in the school
army cadet unit, rising to the rank of cadet under officer and company sergeant major. David had a strong
sporting involvement, including rowing for the second eight whilst at Guildford Grammar School.
Following school, he enrolled as a student in law at the University of Western Australia. Whilst there, he resided
as a student within St George’s College. He also rose to the highest level as a student there—he was senior
student at St George’s College, if my memory serves me correctly, in 1959. David was also selected as the
Rhodes Scholar for Western Australia at the end of his time as a student at the University of WA. He represented
the college in several sports. He also made his mark in debating and amateur drama productions. During his time
at university, both at the University of WA and at the University of Oxford, he had a strong sporting
involvement. He represented UWA in Australian Rules football and rugby union, and then played rugby for the
Oxford University Rugby Football Club, the Greyhounds, and Wadham College during his time there. He
graduated from Oxford in 1962 with first-class honours in civil law. He continued to play rugby for the
Associates Rugby Union Football Club in Perth for quite some time after he returned to Western Australia.
David Malcolm has been widely recognised for his contribution to the legal profession and to the judiciary. He
served almost 18 years as Chief Justice of Western Australia, a very substantial contribution. I suspect what is
less well known was the involvement of David Malcolm in the hills community in Perth, particularly in the
Shire of Mundaring where he and his then wife, the late Jenny Malcolm, lived for many years initially in Boya
and then on a larger equestrian property in Mundaring. They had a very strong involvement in the equestrian
community and activities in Western Australia, obviously in the local community but more widely in Western
Australia as well. I well recall both David and Jenny Malcolm being instrumental in the establishment of the
local pony club, the Darlington Pony Club, in 1970 or thereabouts, to provide opportunities for children and
young people who were interested in riding in the area at the time. I well recall that because although I was not
an able horse rider, my sister was, and my parents were involved with David and Jenny Malcolm in establishing
the Darlington Pony Club together with the parents of the member for Maylands, from whom I look forward to
hearing about her involvement in that respect soon.
David Malcolm was good enough to keep in contact with my late mother for many years following that time
through the exchange of Christmas cards in particular. Quite clearly he was very disciplined and organised in
that respect, and he did so up until not all that long ago; certainly within the last 10 years.
[ASSEMBLY — Wednesday, 22 October 2014]
7733
I acknowledge and reflect on the very positive contribution that David Malcolm made to not only the legal
profession and the judiciary in Western Australia but also the much wider community in many respects including
assisting young people in the way that I mentioned and his contribution to the equestrian community. Once
again, I extend my condolences and sympathy to Kaaren and Manisha, and to David Malcolm’s wider family.
MS L.L. BAKER (Maylands) [12.30 pm]: At the outset I apologise to Kaaren and Manisha because my
knowledge of Hon David Malcolm goes back to about the same time as that of the Leader of the House. I have
vivid memories of walking around cross-country courses in Helena Valley and seeing David with a pair of wire
cutters and some wire on his shoulders, moving poles and building cross-country courses. I am not sure why, but
he always had a number of young teenage girls helping him. He was a charismatic man and beautiful soul, and
I have very fond memories of doing those long treks and building fences.
I did not know about David’s career in Australian Rules football, because the David I knew was a cross-country
rider—an eventer. He had a very big chestnut horse on which he evented moderately successfully, I think. I am
not sure whether it was his chosen sport, but due to the circumstances at the time of having a wife who was very
passionate about horses and eventing, he found himself consumed by the sport, as many of us are. He and Jenny
found me my very first competition horse at the time that my mum and dad were working with the
Leader of the House’s mum and dad to set up the Darlington Pony Club, and I rode her for about five or
six years.
David Malcolm was a fantastic human being. Members have heard the accolades and I could not possibly add
anything to them. However, I want to mention some of the other aspects I knew of David’s life. He was involved
with the Women’s Council for Domestic and Family Violence Services and supported the work that opposed
domestic violence—one of the charities that he supported strongly throughout his life. He was at one time also
a photographer of some notoriety. When he stopped thinking that it was a good idea to mount a 17-hand horse
and pound flat-out across a cross-country course, he decided to pick up a camera and shoot the riders jumping,
which was a better strategy for him. I still have the pictures that David took of me show jumping. They are in my
home on a wall in a quiet spot that nobody ever sees—thank goodness!
Again on a lighter note, he was an amazing career adviser. When I had decided at about the age of 16 years what
my future career would be, I remember thinking, who do I know who is a really important and clever person. It
was David Malcolm. I fronted him and asked whether he would mind writing me a reference so that I could
apply for that job. He said, “Of course, Lisa. What is the job?” I told him that I wanted to be a flight attendant!
He sat back and looked at me over his glasses, and said, “You might want to reconsider that.” I am not sure
whether he was saying something about flight attendants or about me—probably more about me; he knew me
pretty well in those days. He was a great man and I have great memories of him.
Kaaren and Manisha, you have had a fantastic time with a wonderful individual, and I am very sorry, and you
have my condolences.
DR A.D. BUTI (Armadale) [12.34]: I also rise to add my contribution to the condolence motion for the late
Hon David Malcolm. As has been stated by other speakers, Chief Justice Malcolm was an outstanding jurist and
lawyer. He was a Rhodes scholar, an outstanding law student, a brilliant commercial and equity barrister, and, as
has been mentioned, he was the first Chief Justice to be appointed from the independent bar and not from among
his fellow justices. He was also considered to be a reformist and a liberal, and a person who was very generous
with his time. He was a champion of many community and charitable organisations.
In his reformist element, he sought to reform the operations of the court. As we all know, the demands of the
Supreme Court have become great as time has progressed, and he sought to improve the speed with which
decisions were granted and delivered and also the way hearings took place. He also stood up to governments. He
was very concerned about the accommodation that judges had to endure in the Supreme Court of Western
Australia building. He took up the matter of accommodation with Labor and Liberal governments and never
stopped trying to improve the conditions of his fellow justices. He was also very supportive of his fellow
justices. When Christine Wheeler was appointed as the first female to the Bench of the Supreme Court of
Western Australia, he said that it was an exceptional and historic day in the history of Western Australia.
I was fortunate to meet Chief Justice Malcolm when I interviewed him for a book I was writing on
Sir Ronald Wilson. He was very generous with his time and it was an incredible privilege to sit down with him
and speak about the famous John Button appeal, the Darryl Beamish appeal and the trial of Eric Edgar Cooke,
the serial murderer who was the last person to be hung in Western Australia. When he found out that I lived in
Armadale, he told me how his parents and he on their journey from Perth to Bunbury would stop at the Narrogin
Inn, which was at the intersection of South Western Highway, Albany Highway and what is now Armadale
Road, and take refreshments and continue on their journey.
David Malcolm had a leading role in the judgement that exonerated John Button for the murder of his girlfriend.
He refused to sit on the Darryl Beamish appeal because, being the man of honour that he was, he had had
discussions with Sir Francis Burt, the predecessor of Chief Justice David Malcolm, because Francis Burt had
7734
[ASSEMBLY — Wednesday, 22 October 2014]
been the barrister for Darryl Beamish in a number of the earlier appeals. Probably nothing prevented him from
sitting on that appeal, but being a person of high moral integrity, he thought that it would be best to not sit on the
appeal that also returned a finding that the original guilty verdict of Darryl Beamish had been unsafe. He was
also one of the justices in the final Mickelberg appeal, which also returned an unsafe decision on the earlier
guilty conviction of the Mickelberg brothers.
He was also the Chief Justice during the WA Inc Royal Commission into Commercial Activities of Government
and Other Matters. When the Carmen Lawrence government sought to appoint royal commissioners, pressure
was placed on Chief Justice Malcolm to allow Justice Kennedy to be one of the royal commissioners.
Chief Justice Malcolm was not keen about that suggestion because the workload of the justices of the
Supreme Court was becoming onerous and he did not want to lose another one of his justices to the Western
Australian royal commission, which was going to take some time. In fact, another commissioner,
Justice Brinsden, had just retired early because of the workload of the Supreme Court, and Chief Justice
Malcolm was very concerned about the extra workload that would be placed on the other justices if
Justice Kennedy became one of the WA Inc royal commissioners. However, he allowed that to happen on the
understanding that the government would appoint an additional justice to lighten the workload on the remaining
justices of the Supreme Court.
David Malcolm’s decisions were always very well crafted. As I have said, he was an outstanding lawyer and
justice in some of the most important and significant cases in Western Australian judicial history, especially the
Button and Mickelberg appeals. Chief Justice David Malcolm was a brilliant lawyer and jurist, a great Western
Australian, and, more importantly for his family, a very nice man.
MRS M.H. ROBERTS (Midland) [12.39 pm]: I briefly put on the record some remarks about
Hon David Malcolm. Colleagues in this house have already pointed out what a huge intellect he had and his
very, very many achievements. I would like to add that he was a man of great heart, whom I met on a number of
occasions; when we spoke, it was not generally on matters of law or those kinds of things. We talked about
issues such as equal opportunity, gender equality and the plight of Aboriginal people in not only the justice
system, but also the Aboriginal community. People may not know that he was patron of the National Sorry Day
Committee, which released the “Bringing them home” report. He was also patron of the survival concerts held in
the Supreme Court Gardens, and he hosted functions at the Supreme Court for National Reconciliation Week.
I know firsthand that these matters were very dear to his heart. Often when people operate at a very high level
and have huge academic and other achievements, as he did, they lose touch with those in the community who are
less well-off. I put on record that Hon David Malcolm never lost touch with those people. He had huge empathy
for those in the community who were disadvantaged, Aboriginal people and anyone suffering an injustice.
MR B.S. WYATT (Victoria Park) [12.40 pm]: I, too, rise to say a few words about Hon David Malcolm. The
Chief Justice swore me in as a young lawyer. The Chief Justice and a number of other judges of the Supreme
Court swore in about 40 or 50 of us on admission day in about February or March 1997. The Chief Justice
occupied a position that had us all as young lawyers permanently terrified of him, but, of course, as many
members have already said, his very gentle persona emerged over the years. I got to know him better once he left
the bench and took on a role at Notre Dame University; I had more to do with him at that level, particularly
regarding Aboriginal affairs. The shadow Attorney General has made the point about his role with Aboriginal
liaison officers at the Supreme Court and the member for Midland talked about his various roles as a patron in
the broader reconciliation movement.
We have been very fortunate in Western Australia with our Chief Justices—Francis Burt, David Malcolm and
now Wayne Martin—over the past 20 or 30 years. Their legal minds would hold their own anywhere in the
world in the commonwealth system. They took on not only the role of Chief Justice of our Supreme Court, but
also understood their role as leaders in our legal profession and in our community, both while still sitting on the
bench and afterwards, challenging not only Parliament, but also the community to reconsider laws. Certainly
Chief Justice David Malcolm in his role on the Law Reform Commission had a vital role to play in ensuring that
our law was modern and reflected our modern community, which is what our judiciary and our Parliament,
I would like to think, tries to do.
No doubt David Malcolm’s legacy in law is already entrenched and will be long remembered, similarly with
former Chief Justice Francis Burt. I do not think I ever appeared before the good Chief Justice, but he swore me
in as a young lawyer. I say to his family that they should be proud of his legacy as a man who strode not only
Australia but also the Asian region, as we heard today, and left mighty footprints in the legal profession.
MR P.C. TINLEY (Willagee) [12.43 pm]: I want to record my story about the Honourable Chief Justice David
Malcolm. I first came to know him in 1996, as it turns out. For those who may not be familiar, 1996 is a year in
Western Australian military history that carries some great sadness; we lost 15 of our own in a Black Hawk
helicopter accident in Queensland. The response from the Defence Force about compensation and support for
families at that time was anything but adequate. Those young men lost their lives, and certainly those injured and
[ASSEMBLY — Wednesday, 22 October 2014]
7735
their families who had to pick up and go on needed additional support from the community. A very interesting
individual in Western Australia’s business community, a chap by the name of Jeff Kazim, wandered into the
Special Air Service barracks in a very interesting mode of dress—shorts, thongs and a T-shirt—and wanted to
see the commanding officer of the SAS. The commanding officer said, firstly, “How did you get in here?”, and,
secondly, “How can I help you?” He turned out to be a very interesting chap and a wealthy man in his own right
for a range of very interesting reasons that are not worth going into now. He is a former 22 SAS—that is the
United Kingdom SAS—and he certainly understood what the regiment was going through at the time and, as
a Western Australian, what was required: the community needed to step up and assist those families in a very
tragic moment. He wanted to establish a trust or a charity or some sort of arrangement to ensure that there were
enough resources to respond to this accident and any future difficulties from which the Western Australian
military personnel suffered.
Because of his nature he was a little difficult to sell on the Terrace, but also because of Jeff’s nature he was
extremely well connected. It was not long before Chief Justice David Malcolm, as he was at the time, became
involved. He did not hesitate whatsoever to lend his name, weight and considerable intellect to the formation of
the SAS Resources Trust and he went on to chair it for several years. I came to know him on that basis, and
certainly the wider SAS regimental family came to know the work that he did to give the imprimatur that
allowed that trust to grow to a significant resource and provide ongoing support to those families of the dead and
the wounded from not only that particular accident but also subsequent conflicts and operations that the SAS has
undertaken. This is a very sad day, but in my opinion it is also a day to celebrate the reach of what a significant
Western Australian can do in ways that many of us never get to see.
The SPEAKER: Members, I would like the house to carry the motion by rising to observe a minute’s silence.
Question passed; members standing.
PROCEDURE AND PRIVILEGES COMMITTEE
Eighth Report — “Report on a Person Adversely Referred to in the Legislative Assembly—Mr Brett Gibbings”
— Tabling
MS W.M. DUNCAN (Kalgoorlie — Deputy Speaker) [12.47 pm]: I present for tabling the eighth report of the
Procedure and Privileges Committee of the thirty-ninth Parliament, titled “Report on a Person Adversely
Referred to in the Legislative Assembly—Mr Brett Gibbings”.
[See paper 2320.]
Ms W.M. DUNCAN: The Chair of the Procedure and Privileges Committee received a letter from
Mr Brett Gibbings seeking to respond to comments made in the Legislative Assembly on 18 November 2010 by
the member for Wanneroo, Mr Paul Miles, MLA, and on 17 March 2011 by the member for Scarborough,
Hon Liza Harvey, MLA, in her then capacity as parliamentary secretary.
The committee has agreed to recommend the incorporation of the response by Mr Brett Gibbings in Hansard and
the response is appended to the report just tabled. I advise that, in accordance with standing order 114, the
committee has not considered or judged the truth of any statements made in the report or in the submission.
Adoption of Report — Motion
On motion by Ms W.M. Duncan, resolved —
That the report be adopted.
The following response was incorporated, pursuant to standing order 114 —
Response Pursuant to Legislative Assembly Standing Order 114
On 18 November 2010, Mr Paul Miles MLA made statements in the Legislative Assembly which have adversely affected me in
reputation, in respect to my dealings and associations with others, and which have injured me—and continue to injure me—in my
occupation.
Subsequently, on 17 March 2011, Hon Liza Harvey MLA, in her then capacity as Parliamentary Secretary, made statements in the
Legislative Assembly, which have adversely affected me in reputation, in respect of my dealings and associations with others, and
which have injured me—and continue to injure me—in my occupation.
The adverse statements, and my responses to them, are as follows:
Mr Paul Miles MLA
“My grievance is addressed to the Minister for Commerce, Hon Bill Marmion, MLA. I am very concerned about the activities
of a company known as DevGroup, which has been operating in my electorate of Wanneroo, although its activities also range
much further afield. DevGroup builds ready-to-rent investment properties throughout Perth. The company has an office in
Balcatta, and the director of the company is Mr Brett Gibbings”.
Response:
7736
[ASSEMBLY — Wednesday, 22 October 2014]
•
I was not the only Director; there were in fact three other Directors all as responsible for the affairs of the group of
companies. I believe only the Company should have been referred to and not any one individual as all the Directors
had differing roles and responsibilities.
“I first became aware of DevGroup’s activities when a number of local families approached my office seeking assistance to
recover moneys that they had put into DevGroup. DevGroup organised a community meeting at the local football club in
Wanneroo to outline an investment opportunity. At the end of the evening, DevGroup had obtained commitments from 10 to
12 local families for deposits of up to $200 000 to invest in projects by DevGroup’s real estate company. However, out of
12 projects, only two have been completed—one in Armadale, and one in Innaloo. At the project in Madeley, which is in my
electorate, stages 1, 2 and 3 have been completed, but not the final stage. The company has another nine projects, two of
which are in Wanneroo, at Pearsall and Sinagra; and its other projects, at Armadale, Joondanna, Doubleview and Innaloo,
are yet be completed”.
Response:
•
There were never 12 projects under way at any one time.
•
All stages 1–3 were completed of the Madeley Projects. There was never a “final stage”. Stage 3 was the final stage,
which was completed.
•
I was not involved in the “community meeting”. This was conducted and organised by the Salesperson of DevGroup
and her Mother with a group of their friends and associates at a lunch meeting held at the Wanneroo football club as
I understand. Neither I, nor any of the other Directors were privy to what was discussed at that lunch meeting.
•
Inaccuracies of Mr Paul Miles’ statements can be confirmed by way of example, where he stated that only two projects
were completed then later states that three were completed at Madeley.
“One investor has told me that she believes that Mr Gibbings has used investors’ moneys to give large $40 000 to $50 000
deposits to a particular builder, even before the land has been purchased. She also believes this builder to be Brett Gibbings’
father-in-law. Mr Gibbings seems to be fleecing money by off-laying to family members these so-called deposits on these
projects. The investors’ deposits are non-refundable should the properties not be built, which is the scenario that is unfolding
in my electorate. That means that if a project is not completed, investors have no avenue of compensation open to them”.
Response:
•
•
•
•
•
Mr Paul Miles was offered on numerous occasions to discuss the matter with DevGroup openly and to view all
documentation and to demonstrate DevGroup’s compliance. The suggestion from Mr Miles that “Mr Gibbings seems
to be fleecing money by off-laying to family members these so-called deposits on these projects ...” is not factual.
In the normal practice of a Building Contracts terms, deposits were provided to the Builder engaged for the building of
the projects who was an independent Licensed Builder, Gary Richards trading as Westech Homes who went into
Bankruptcy. Westech Homes completed 6 projects and left 5 projects incomplete causing the various project Lenders
to withdraw funding.
Norman Bryan Woolhouse, a Licensed Builder, was then forced due to the Westech Homes demise to attempt to
recover from the position Westech Homes left the projects in. He was provided some deposit monies for two projects
which was utilised as required on the projects and all funds were fully accounted for. Investors were provided an
account breakdown of the project expenditures.
Investors contributed their proportionate required capital (not actually a deposit) into the Managed Investment Scheme
Project Bank Account. Monies would then be utilised as defined in the Product Disclosure Statement (PDS) and
Development Agreements to develop the land for costs such as purchase of the land, design fees, shire fees,
WaterCorp and Synergy etc. The builder would then manage these processes and as such, these costs were provided to
the builder to pay on behalf of the Scheme.
Investors took up an investment in scheme units, which is not dissimilar to Australian Securities Exchange shares.
Investors could sell their investment (unit) if there is a willing buyer. All Investors had this option. It was the
Responsible Entities (Trustee) duty to ensure full subscription was achieved before making existing Investors units
available to others. It was not simply a matter of getting a “deposit” returned. This was all clearly detailed in the PDS
of each Scheme.
“Most of the families who have invested with DevGroup borrowed their deposits from a bank or lending institution and
consequently are paying ever-increasing interest rates. In the meantime, DevGroup is continuing to deceive investors by not
completing the promised projects. It is also refusing to provide investors with any information about why nothing has been
happening in the past two years. One local family that I know of has paid $30 000 in interest charges alone, while the
promised development has not yet commenced, yet the family was told by DevGroup when it signed up that the project would
be finished by September 2008. Mr Gibbings has now advised this family that the finance that his company had originally
amassed has run out and he is having problems finding an alternative source of finance to complete the development. The
investors I have met believe that DevGroup is in breach of its legal responsibilities and obligations. These include the
company’s refusal to provide these investors with information on all relevant financial and operational matters. I am appalled
by the actions of Mr Gibbings, who has offered no plausible explanation for where the initial investment moneys have gone.
Worse still, he has attempted to blame investors for his failed operations in these projects. One family, having already outlaid
$200 000, was then painted as the villains by Mr Gibbings and DevGroup for pulling out of a sale. In fact, Mr Gibbings must
take the blame for the collapse of this sale, as he had already blown the investors’ original deposit. He then had the cheek to
ask for a further $20 000 from this family”.
Response:
•
At no time was any Investor deceived, full disclosure was provided by way of PDS, Development Agreements and
monthly updates.
•
DevGroup at all times adhered to its responsibilities and obligations as required by the Australian Securities and
Investments Commission (ASIC).
[ASSEMBLY — Wednesday, 22 October 2014]
7737
•
The company sent regular updates to Investors of which copies were provided to ASIC for verification purposes.
•
There was never a “sale” to an Investor. The Investors took part in a Managed Investment Scheme and invested in
“Scheme Units”. On successful completion the Investors would have first right of refusal to take a completed
residential property and as it was an Illiquid Fund as defined in the PDS, there was never an opportunity to exit the
scheme until either completion or if a replacement Investor was available.
•
A number of Investors did not pay their full investment amount and were requested to do so in accordance to the
agreements made with each Investor. They were not requested to pay more than what was detailed in the PDS.
•
Mr Miles comments are unverified. DevGroup worked with ASIC regularly to ensure that it was compliant under the
Australia Financial Services Licence and the Corporations Act. DevGroup also had its own compliance team made up
of external members not related to the company to also oversee compliance. In addition, other Government
Departments investigated and found no case to answer.
“These investors thought they were putting their retirement funds into a safe investment. They believed that they would see
a return on their outlay within 12 months, as specified in DevGroup’s product disclosure statement. Instead, it very much
looks as though they will never see their investment again. This is causing much distress and hardship to these investors, many
of whom are approaching retirement age and may never recover financially and emotionally from the loss of these moneys.
I would welcome any assistance that the minister can provide to expose this company’s dodgy dealings and ensure that
DevGroup, or any similar operators, cannot continue to fleece people of their hard-earned money in such a callous and
calculated manner”.
Response
•
At no time did DevGroup engage in “dodgy dealings” or “fleece people”: it was at all times compliant and provided
full disclosure to Investors.
Hon Liza Harvey MLA
“The member for Wanneroo brought to this house a number of times the activities of another group, DevGroup, and the
notorious director of that organisation, Mr Brett Gibbings. Some rogue builders can irresponsibly go about their business with
impunity. They rely on the inadequacies of the existing regime to deny and basically abscond from their responsibilities when
they cause damage to people’s properties or when they fail to complete construction, as I believe was the case with DevGroup”.
Response:
•
I have never been a builder nor I have I been engaged as a builder. Hon Liza Harvey refers to me as being “notorious”
and implies that I am a “rogue builder” who has gone irresponsibly about my business with “impunity”, and have
“absconded” from my responsibilities. These statements are incorrect.
•
DevGroup Pty Ltd and DevGroup Funds Management Ltd were never builders. A check with the Builders Registration
Board will verify this. Both entities acted as Trustees and/or Responsible entities for the Managed Investment Schemes
or Property Syndicates. Both companies suffered adversely by the Hon Liza Harvey’s commentary.
•
Norman Bryan Woolhouse had registered a company by the name of DevGroup Constructions Pty Ltd which was not
engaged in building activities. It did however operate as a Project Manager. This was a separate company which I had
no ownership, control or held any office for.
•
The Builder engaged for the building of the projects was an Independent Builder Gary Richards trading as
Westech Homes who went into Bankruptcy. Westech Homes completed 6 projects and left 5 projects incomplete
causing the various project Lenders to withdraw funding.
•
Norman Bryan Woolhouse, a Licensed Builder, was forced due to the Westech Homes demise to attempt to recover
the position Westech Homes left the projects in. He registered the Business name DevGroup Constructions (Norman
Bryan Woolhouse trading as) in order to attempt to finalise the projects at Builders cost, however the Lenders
ultimately did not allow this to occur, given they had withdrawn funding.
Brett Gibbings
TAXATION LEGISLATION AMENDMENT BILL (NO. 2) 2014
Notice of Motion to Introduce
Notice of motion given by Mr D.C. Nalder (Minister for Finance).
TELSTRA WESTERN AUSTRALIAN BUSINESS WOMEN’S AWARDS
Statement by Acting Minister for Women’s Interests
MR J.H.D. DAY (Kalamunda — Acting Minister for Women’s Interests) [12.50 pm]: I am very pleased to
share with members some exciting news in the women’s interests portfolio. In particular, I am pleased to
acknowledge a woman who champions workplace flexibility in the male-dominated construction and mining
sector and who has been named the 2014 Telstra Western Australian Business Woman of the Year.
Sharon Warburton, executive director strategy at leading global construction contractor Brookfield Multiplex
and a non-executive director since 2013 at Fortescue Metals Group, also won the private and corporate sector
award at the twentieth Telstra Western Australian Business Women’s Awards at Crown Perth on 10 October
2014.
7738
[ASSEMBLY — Wednesday, 22 October 2014]
Training as a chartered accountant while working at KPMG, Sharon Warburton moved into the mining and
property sectors, thriving in cross-cultural leadership roles in multinationals from a young age. At 25, she was
the financial controller at Hamersley Iron, now Rio Tinto, before assuming a group analyst role for Rio Tinto in
London. Her roles after that included mergers and acquisitions management for the then Multiplex Group and
strategy experience for Aldar Properties in Abu Dhabi, before returning to Perth and her current role at
Brookfield Multiplex in 2011.
Ms Warburton is actively involved in mentoring young women and men through Brookfield Multiplex’s
emerging leaders program, Women in Mining WA and the National Association of Women in Operations. The
co-chair of FMG’s remuneration and nominations committee, she is also a director of the fundraising not-forprofit foundation of Perth’s Princess Margaret Hospital for Children. Sharon wears many hats. She juggles
motherhood with her senior executive role and directorships of a listed company and a not-for-profit
organisation. Her leadership style is one of building the team to empower them to lead.
Other winners include two not-for-profit CEOs—the Rise Network’s Justine Colyer, winner of the community
and government award, and the Centre for Cerebral Palsy’s Judy Hogben, who took out the business innovation
award for her leadership in distributing a powered vehicle for Australian children with cerebral palsy.
Gemma Tognini, founder of gtmedia Strategic Communications, won the business owner award, and
Laura McMahon Higgins, who runs training services consultancy Questamon, was named the young business
woman winner.
The WA winners proceed to the national finals in Melbourne on 26 November 2014. I wish these remarkable
Western Australian women all the best in the national awards.
2014 GOLDEN GECKO AWARDS
Statement by Minister for Mines and Petroleum
MR W.R. MARMION (Nedlands — Minister for Mines and Petroleum) [12.53 pm]: On 9 October
I attended the 2014 Golden Gecko Awards held at the Duxton Hotel. The Golden Geckos were launched in 1992,
making this the twenty-third year that the awards have been organised by the Department of Mines and
Petroleum, and in that time they have become an important night in the resources industry social calendar.
This year marked a change in the Golden Gecko Awards format, being the first time that the night was opened to
everyone in the resources industry rather than being an invite-only event. In recognition of the importance of
sharing learnings throughout the industry, entrants were also given an opportunity to present their projects to the
audience prior to the awards ceremony. The awards have the very important goal of recognising environmental
excellence and innovation in the mining and petroleum industries. This year there were six finalists:
Argyle Diamonds Ltd for its project maximising the use of renewable energy at Argyle Diamonds;
Environmental Rehabilitation WA for its Mt Ida magnetite rehabilitation project—beyond best practice;
Evolution Mining, Edna May operations, for its Eremophila resinosa translocation program;
Franmarine Underwater Services Pty Ltd and the Department of Fisheries for their project, in-water hull cleaning
system; Geo Oceans Pty Ltd for its project, GO visions marine habitat mapping and monitoring technology; and
Newcrest Mining Ltd for its project, alternate solution—copper concentrate storage facility.
The winner of the certificate of merit for the 2014 Golden Gecko Awards was Geo Oceans. Its GO visions
technology enables rapid assessment and monitoring of large areas of coastal marine habitats and can be of great
assistance in situations such as an oil spill. The winner of the 2014 Golden Gecko Award for environmental
excellence was Franmarine and the Department of Fisheries. This project eradicates bio-fouling of large marine
vessels through an in-water hull cleaning system. This means a ship does not have to be dry-docked for it to be
cleaned, thereby reducing cleaning costs and the cost of travelling to dry dock. This also promotes a preventive
approach to biosecurity and a clean-hull operating policy for Western Australian waters. This innovation is
particularly impressive as its applications stretch far beyond the resources industry. It also manages to achieve
significant cost savings for industry whilst improving outcomes for the WA environment.
All of this year’s submissions have demonstrated exceptional environmental management and commitment over
a range of different projects. The Golden Gecko Awards recognise excellence and leadership and acknowledge
the outstanding contribution recipients have made to the responsible development of WA’s resources.
NATIONAL WATER WEEK
Statement by Minister for Water
MS M.J. DAVIES (Central Wheatbelt — Minister for Water) [12.56 pm]: This week is National Water
Week—an annual event coordinated by the Australian Water Association to build awareness and understanding
of water issues across the country. The theme of Water Week for 2014 is “Water sources: There are more than
you think”. It is very timely that this morning I turned the sod on the advanced water recycling plant in Craigie
for our groundwater replenishment scheme. The first rig has been mobilised to drill two monitoring and recharge
[ASSEMBLY — Wednesday, 22 October 2014]
7739
bores into the Leederville aquifer at Water Corporation’s Craigie site. This follows on from the construction of
a 754-metre deep bore into the Yarragadee aquifer, which will allow the recharge of 3.5 billion litres of recycled
water a year. In our drying climate, groundwater replenishment provides a secure, rainfall-independent water
source that has the potential to supply up to 20 per cent of Perth’s future drinking water needs by 2060. Western
Australia is regarded as a leading practitioner of this technology that will see 14 billion litres of recycled water,
treated to drinking water standards, recharged into existing groundwater supplies each year. The full-scale plant
is scheduled for completion in late 2016, and could be expanded to 28 billion litres capacity over several years as
demand increases. This means that the Perth metropolitan area now has a diverse range of water sources. We
obviously still have our dams, which capture and store water when it rains. We have our two desalination plants
and our existing groundwater supplies and we are now moving into recycling water to replenish our
groundwater.
Our next focus is to ensure that regional WA has an increased security of water supply. This is a bit more
challenging, with a number of regional towns being reliant on one water source or water being piped or carted
long distances. However, we have started this work and I have spoken in this place previously about the
Warren–Blackwood regional water supply scheme and the Margaret River scheme, which will provide a mix of
groundwater and surface water to parts of the south west.
Royalties for regions is funding a range of groundwater investigations across the state, which are proving up new
water resources. We are also looking at the existing water assets we have in regional areas to make sure that we
are making the best use of the infrastructure we have available. Bringing small disused dams back into service
and enhancing our existing wastewater recycling schemes are some of the things we can do now to make a real
difference to our regional communities. We live in one of the driest parts of the world and ensuring we have
a diverse range of water sources is helping to secure the water supplies as our climate continues to change.
RAIL SAFETY NATIONAL LAW (WA) BILL 2014
Second Reading
Resumed from 21 October.
MS J.M. FREEMAN (Mirrabooka) [12.58 pm]: I rise to speak on the Rail Safety National Law (WA) Bill
2014. The Minister for Transport will be aware that I have a background in occupational health and safety.
I remembered straightaway that rail safety is one of the founding areas that established our modern-day
occupational health and safety system. I believe that it is important for the Minister for Transport to put into
context the sort of system we have in Western Australia. It is a system based on looking at safety as a process,
not looking at individual blame. We should look at it as a systematic issue in which policymakers have
a capacity to ensure the safety of our community. This is not dissimilar in some ways to the Towards Zero road
safety campaign, in that it goes beyond constantly blaming individuals. It is an engineering concept. It is
probably also a banking concept, if we look at security in banking. Although people can open themselves up to
individual fraud, how does the bank as an organisation ensure that the integrity of the system is protected? I was
quite interested in bringing to this debate one of my passions, and one of the things that brought me into this
place, and applying it to the Rail Safety National Law (WA) Bill 2014.
We all know that this bill puts into effect the rail safety model laws that were developed by the Council of
Australian Governments through a series of processes that have been going on in Australia over the past 10 years
to establish more consistent national laws on occupational health and safety. It is happening because we are
a nation, and having separate laws in each state that do not work together and are inconsistent is a cost factor for
many of our businesses. Policymakers and lawmakers need to look at systems such as this and determine that it
needs to be done on a national basis. My understanding is that this bill really puts into effect the Rail Safety Act
2010. The minister’s second reading speech states that the Rail Safety Act 2010 reflected the model law. The
minister stated that Western Australia’s law reflected the model law better than that of any other state, but the
South Australian minister, in the second reading speech for its rail safety law, claimed that South Australia’s law
reflected the model law better than that of any other state. I would be interested in the minister outlining the
major differences between the Rail Safety Act 2010 and the bill now before the house. I am not sure whether that
information is in the second reading speech, which contained a fairly simple view that was being brought into
a national perspective. I will be interested in knowing the differences. I know that one is urine testing, and I will
go into that a bit later.
My understanding is that the national laws have been operating in other states for almost two years. I think the
South Australian Parliament has now passed some 10 sets of regulations after the major set of regulations.
Western Australia has some catching up to do in that matter. I think that is tardy. It is not the fault of the present
minister, who is only a new minister, but if he does the same thing in two years’ time, I will be saying that he is
tardy. It is very tardy of the present government to take so long to produce regulations under a law that is so
similar to the national law.
7740
[ASSEMBLY — Wednesday, 22 October 2014]
As a matter of clarification, I am interested in knowing whether Western Australia has introduced the heavy
vehicle national laws. These laws have been in place in South Australia since 2013. If the minister does not bring
those in soon, we will be saying that he is tardy.
Mr D.C. Nalder: We don’t want to bring those in.
Ms J.M. FREEMAN: We do not want to participate in a national scheme on roads, but we are okay about
playing nationally on rail.
Mr D.C. Nalder: It was the way that they were formatted. It would not have worked.
Ms J.M. FREEMAN: Would national laws not work? The minister should tell that to business. They are
national laws, and we are part of a national process. I hate to tell the minister this, but Western Australia is part
of the commonwealth—shame about that! That is a bit of my beef.
Mr D.C. Nalder: That it is an interesting proposition.
Ms J.M. FREEMAN: It is exactly an interesting question, because we are part of the commonwealth; we have
not seceded.
My understanding is that this legislation establishes a single regulator. If Western Australia was really part of
a national rail system, it would adopt the national legislation, but being the dissenters that we are—I wanted to
put “splitters” in, rather than “dissenters”—for some reason we think that we have to stand apart, and we are
introducing just a mirror bill. We are doing that on the basis that we have done that before with the
Health Practitioner Regulation National Law (WA) Act 2010. I am being completely consistent in this argument.
That is not the way that we should do it. If we want to be part of a national law, we should adopt it along with a
majority disallowance clause. I want to put it squarely out there that I believe that.
Mr D.C. Nalder: Is that Labor’s position or your personal position?
Ms J.M. FREEMAN: That is my personal position. I am happy to work very hard to try to make it
Labor’s position, but it is my personal position.
It is somewhat ironic that we are using this different way of doing a national bill. Given that the history of
different rail gauges in different states is now a thing of the past, we cannot manage it in our laws. We are happy
to have the physical infrastructure as a nation, but we have yet to grow up enough to treat our policy
infrastructure in the same way. The capacity to act as a nation should not be beyond this Parliament. Rail is
something that crosses boundaries, and our policy capacity should do the same. The South Australian minister,
Hon John Rau, outlined a bit of the history in 2012, when the South Australian national legislation was
introduced into Parliament. He said —
By Federation in 1901, all States except Western Australia were ‘linked’ by rail and more than
20,000 km of track had been laid … Three different gauges had been used.
In 1917, a person wanting to travel from Perth to Brisbane on an east-west crossing of the continent had
to change trains six times.
… it was not until June 1995 that trains could travel between Brisbane and Perth, via Sydney,
Melbourne and Adelaide on a standard gauge track.
A year later my son was born, and he has just become an adult. In the space of a single adult’s lifetime, we have
had a national rail network, and we are only now seeing national safety legislation, which we are not fully seeing
in any case because this government has decided to argue sovereignty issues. I do not know whether any other
members have done it, but I have taken the opportunity to travel on the Indian–Pacific. I must admit I went only
as far as Melbourne; we got off in South Australia and went on to Melbourne. These days we all travel on
aeroplanes, but would it not be fun if we had to get off the plane at each border and get on the next one? It must
have seemed ludicrous to people that we had different gauges. Just to remind members again, it was not until
June 1995 that we did not have to get off one rail gauge and get on another. Although it may seem
incomprehensible that a train that crosses borders would be subject to different sets of regulations, Western
Australia will ensure that this is still the case as it stubbornly argues sovereignty over practicality and legislative
competency over cooperation. At least the follow-the-leader type of legislation that we seem to be doing—as
long as someone else is doing it, we are happy to follow them—will enable operations to be relieved of
duplication. At least national rail companies and national organisations that run rail will be relieved of the
duplication and the costs that go with that duplication.
That is on the basis that the government accepts the regulations and the changes to legislation without delay.
Given the history of this bill, which has been two years in the making, and that this bill pretty much reflects the
Rail Safety Act 2010, I hope the government does not refuse to act in the spirit of the commonwealth law and
that it adopts this bill. I am assuming all those things.
[ASSEMBLY — Wednesday, 22 October 2014]
7741
I want to tell members about my particular interest in this bill, which is a very sad thing. When I looked at the
legislation I immediately tried to recall the case that established rail safety in Australia. There were many cases,
but there was one major case in particular. It was a terrible thing. It involved the Sunshine rail disaster that
happened in 1908, and because I like to tell people about the history of things I will share this case with
members. I did go back and read it again. It happened at the Sunshine railway station, which was the junction for
the Ballarat and Bendigo railway lines. It is about 13.5 kilometres from Melbourne, but in those days it was
measured in miles, so 8.4 miles from Melbourne. On the night of Easter Monday, 20 April 1908, 44 people were
killed and over 400 injured when a Melbourne-bound mail train from Bendigo collided with the rear of
a passenger train from Ballarat. A rail investigation is a very complex investigation, as are all investigations for
accidents involving public transport vehicles, as they are covered by complex pieces of legislation and it takes
people quite a while to analyse the site of the accident and to determine what has gone on. It was interesting that
in this case the investigation resulted in a charge against the driver of the train that collided with the rear of the
stationary train, suggesting that he was going too fast. The judge, to his or her credit—I am sure in 1908 it was
definitely a he—found to the effect that the Crown case that the driver of the lead locomotive had deliberately
run past the distance signal at too great a pace, expecting the station would be clear, was not upheld. The judge
found that the systems in place did not give the driver the capacity to know that there had been a problem and
that a train was parked at the station. The train was parked at the station because there had been a few delays.
There had been too many people on the lead train because it was Easter and more people were travelling, and
they had to offload in two stages because the platform was not long enough. The lead train was delayed from
moving through because it was carrying too many passengers, and the second train came through and ploughed
into the back of it. The judge looked at the systems established in Britain and found that if platforms are not
clear, there is a warning system; however, Australia did not have those systems in place. The judge found that an
individual driver was not to blame for this accident, because had the system been in place and the driver knew
there were warning signs to slow down because there was a train there, he would have been able to slow the train
and this calamity of many people dying and being injured would not have happened.
That systematic approach to safety was adopted wholeheartedly by the Australian rail industry. There were a few
cases subsequent to that incident, but Sunshine was the major one. Australia has been fortunate not to have had
really serious accidents. There have been a few, but not as many as in other countries. That might be because we
do not have as much rail traffic; however, it is my understanding that the rail industry in Australia has high levels
of safety. That is predominantly because people who design and engineer our rail systems take into account how
to make the system safe, and also they have put in place driver training and processes that allow for reaction
time. The problem in the Sunshine incident was that when the train driver saw a train at the station, he had no
capacity to stop the train, given the speed the train was travelling and the reaction time needed to stop in time.
The process now factors in capacity for reaction time. This information is a bit off the top of my head and some
rail safety people might be saying that there are intricacies involved in it, but I wanted to make the house aware
of how rail safety has been established in Australia and that the national rail safety reforms and the
harmonisation of those reforms through this process should be seen as a forerunner to how we look at other
aspects of occupational safety and health.
[Member’s time extended.]
Ms J.M. FREEMAN: One sadness for me is that over many years, as a result of the politics involved,
occupational safety and health systems had been taken out of our jurisdiction. It is no longer about looking at the
issues, such as designing systems and looking at workplaces and what is best for them, considering the
responsibilities of not only the employer to provide a safe workplace but also the employee to perform in
a manner that meets the safety requirements of that workplace; it is now about playing individual blame games.
It is therefore sad that one of the reasons this bill has been delayed is because politics was brought back in and
this state did not want to go into a national rail system during the time of a federal Labor government. I am glad
to see that now we are moving towards harmonisation of our occupational safety and health systems.
Given my background in workers’ compensation and industrial relations, my view is that the people who suffer
when the politics of opposing sides is brought into occupational safety and health and industrial relations are the
employers. Workers are not affected as much as employers, because employers are left with multiple systems of
regulations and red tape. I have never been the employers’ best friend, but I want to work with them because if
they know what they are doing and are clear about their responsibilities and they can afford to provide the best
system possible without regulatory red tape, they will do the best for workers, which has always been at the core
of my working life and the commitments that I have had in my working life. It has always been a huge thing for
me to ensure that that sort of commitment to national regulations has happened.
In finishing this history lesson, we ended up with many variances of different laws—rail safety being one of
them, but rail safety has always stood apart. We then started to develop laws around that system and how we
dealt with safety in the workplace based on the Robens Committee report, “Safety and Health at Work: Report of
the Committee 1970–72”, a British report published in June 1972. That now forms the basis of Australia’s
7742
[ASSEMBLY — Wednesday, 22 October 2014]
modern occupational safety and health laws; that is, laws should be simple and balanced between prescriptive
and goal-setting legislation, but, most of all, should be framework legislation and should have those
framework-type duties that we talk about, such as the responsibilities of not only the employer to provide a safe
workplace but also the employee to work in a manner that complies with safety.
This is a really large law for framework legislation, and regulations will be attached to that legislation. It seems
to me that we always need to go back to some of those foundation principles of Robens, because they are
supposed to be for real people who are trying to ensure that there is safety in the workplace. We always have to
remember the basic principles that the laws should be as simple as possible, that there should be a good balance
between prescriptive and goal-setting legislation, and that the framework law should have specific regulations,
codes of practice and guidance when necessary and appropriate. That is why it worries me that we have decided
to provide for urine testing for drugs within legislation, not regulations. That is not framework; that is specifics
and particulars. I am not suggesting that that might not be a good way of doing it, although I will argue that it is
not, because urine testing has not been shown to have great efficacy or great outcomes. However, if the minister
wants to be a good lawmaker, and not just someone who lets people put things in legislation that then become
cumbersome and difficult to change, it is not good lawmaking for us to do something different from the national
law and have a different prescriptive nature for alcohol and drug testing that includes urine testing, because it
undermines the principles of what the minister intends to be done. It is the minister’s job to argue around the
Council of Australian Governments table of chief ministers why it is good to have urine testing in regulations. If
the argument is compelling, it should be compelling for seven states, not just for us, because we are a nation. If
the minister believes in his arguments, he should test them, because clearly they are not applicable if they are not
doing that, and there is a reason they are not applicable.
A guiding principle of the occupational health and safety legislation should give workers and their
representatives substantial input into protecting their health and safety and wellbeing at work. Part of that has
been a gradual removal of the idea of welfare and health from the workplace, which undermines the guiding
principle. Part of that has come from the imposition of an American perspective on alcohol and drug laws on the
way that we deal with competency and capacity in our workplaces through those people who drive technology
for drug and alcohol testing in the United States selling it as a way to ensure that there is safety because people
are being tested for drugs and alcohol. However, the reality is that it does not test for what is important. It might
test for substance abuse, and clearly that needs to be addressed, but it does not test people’s capacity to undertake
the work. A drug test may show that a worker smoked cannabis seven days ago, but that does not necessarily
mean that they cannot do the job and do not have the competency, capacity and capability to do that job; it just
shows that in their private life, they did something that is illegal. Is it the role of the employer to police people’s
private lives? I do not think it is. That is the role of the police and the justice system. If a worker who has the
capacity and ability to undertake their work takes a urine test that extends into their private life, that causes a big
difficulty.
The history of drug and alcohol testing began in the 1960s. When the military veterans returned from Vietnam,
they started to get tested because there was a major injury on an aircraft carrier, I think. In 1986, in his war
against drugs, US President Ronald Reagan introduced the “Drug-Free Federal Workplace” executive order
requiring all federal agencies to establish a program of testing. By 1988, it was extended to contractors and staff
of all organisations in receipt of grants from the US government. In Australia, one of the earliest examples of
workplace drug testing was introduced in 1988 by the New South Wales State Rail Authority under the
Transport Administration Act. New South Wales has introduced drug testing, but I understand—I may stand
corrected, minister—that it has not included urine testing in this area. It has adopted the model law, which does
not include urine testing. It has been doing this since 1988, so we might think that it would know how this
works, but it has not included it. From there, drug and alcohol testing progressed to the Australian Federal
Police, the New South Wales police and then the mining industry.
My view is that it has been driven less by safety systems and more by people who have a product to sell—
product is huge in America—saying that this is how safety can be ensured. My understanding is that the
Civil Aviation Safety Authority does oral and breath testing, not urine testing. There have been questions about
the efficacy of workplace alcohol and drug testing mostly because there is no real scientific evidence of
improvements to either workplace productivity or workplace safety from the implementation of urine testing
programs. That is based on a study by Loxley et al in 2004.
In the United Kingdom, the Independent Inquiry into Drug Testing at Work in 2004 found no clear evidence of
the deterrent effect of drug testing. In the Endeavour Energy decision, which the member for Fremantle talked
about, Fair Work Australia found urine testing to be unjust and unreasonable and saliva swabs to be appropriate.
Urine testing is intrusive and it measures the level of drugs, not impairment. It does not meet that test between
competing considerations in a safe workplace.
The member for Butler raised a really important point; that is, what has occurred and has been shown to occur—
there is a paper by Duffy in 2012 and a British Army report in 1988—is that the unintended consequence of
[ASSEMBLY — Wednesday, 22 October 2014]
7743
workplace drug testing is the shift from drugs with a long biological half-life, such as cannabis, to drugs with
a shorter half-life, such as methamphetamines. That is a problem. If the workplace is trying to ensure safety, but
it is really undermining health and not delivering on safety at all, the system is wrong. If this is based on a safety
system and we are going to do a systemic analysis, the system is wrong.
One of the issues that the member for Butler raised was the operating level for drugs and alcohol. In the
New South Wales regulation that was passed in 2013—I think this is in the new federal regulations—the
permissible blood alcohol concentration for rail workers dropped from .02 to nil and the fine increased. It is not
that there is any expectation, but that can be tested by saliva. I understand—the minister can probably correct
me—that urine testing is mostly done after the accident. Accident investigation is important.
MRS M.H. ROBERTS (Midland) [1.30 pm]: As the member for Midland, I probably have more significant,
historic and current rail issues in my electorate than just about any other member does. As people in this house
are no doubt aware, Midland and Guildford were two of the places first settled in the early days of this colony.
Although transport was first by boat, and hence why the City of Swan’s emblem depicts an anchor, rail was
established in the very early days of the colony to Guildford and Midland and, indeed, beyond. One of the facts
that concerns me about this Rail Safety National Law (WA) Bill, and that I want to raise with the minister on the
record—I am glad this bill affords me the opportunity to do so—is the rail freight line, particularly through
Midland, but more particularly through the Woodbridge area. Until a few years ago, the area I am referring to as
Woodbridge was known as West Midland. It is the area between Guildford and Midland central. There used to
be a West Midland station there, which is where most of the children alight for Governor Stirling Senior High
School and Guildford Grammar School. An interesting little reflection is that unless David Malcolm was
a boarder, he probably had to alight at the old West Midland station, now the Woodbridge station. Pretty much
running right through the centre of Midland is a double dual-gauge freight rail line. In those early days, the
Midland railway workshops were operative, and had been for some 90 years. They employed a lot of people
throughout the region. In their heyday, a couple of thousand people worked there.
I suppose it is fair to say that only 20 years ago, Midland was very much more of a country town on the fringe of
the urban area. However, we find now that with urban populations increasing—indeed, the population of the
whole metropolitan area increasing—areas in the 20 or 30 kilometres surrounding Midland are becoming
populated for urban development and the Midland community is experiencing a lot of infill. Basically, straight
through the centre of Midland and right through my electorate is the freight rail line. I have written numerous
letters over the years to a succession of Ministers for Transport about the freight rail line. From time to time,
constituents become more concerned about what is happening. Some of my constituents live very, very close to
the freight rail line through Woodbridge, and their lives are impacted by that freight rail line. Those people suffer
noise effects, which is their principal concern, but sometimes it is braking noise and the general noise of trains.
The rest of us are inconvenienced from time to time by the various level crossings in the electorate. When
families are waiting for a freight train, it is a bit of a game for children to count the number of carriages. I have
certainly counted well in excess of 70 carriages, and that number of carriages takes a considerable time to pass.
When people are running late or are delayed, they often find the freight trains passing through the level crossings
to be an inconvenience. But the real issue I am raising here is that of those people living in the immediate
vicinity of the freight rail line who have to put up with the noise that impacts on their wellbeing and their ability
to sleep through the night. Their families, children and elderly people need to get a good night’s sleep
undisturbed by freight trains. I think people in that area are very used to the passenger trains, which make a very
limited amount of noise. That is not the issue I am raising because I know people here will say that if people
choose to live near a passenger rail line that has been there for a very long time, they are the breaks. The
passenger trains do not cause the problem; they are not what I am getting complaints about. It is the freight rail
trains that I get a significant number of complaints about.
In about 1997 there was something called a planning charrette process in Midland, spearheaded by the City of
Swan. As part of that charrette process, discussions started in earnest about shifting the freight rail line and
a number of potential routes were considered. Very much pressure has been placed on the City of Swan and
government to move the freight rail line to a more sensible route that takes it away from residents and sensitive
land uses. I particularly want to signal the new hospital to be known as the Midland public hospital, which will
open next year. Quite a number of reports refer to the safety factors associated with freight. Where a freight line
goes through an area, dangerous goods as part of that freight are certainly a concern for people. The noise is
without doubt the principal factor, but I suppose of a lower order is the concern about what goods might be
transported by train through a built-up urban area, particularly in the vicinity of sensitive uses. By “sensitive
uses”, I am talking about health facilities, schools, kindergartens and facilities of that nature. Various reports
done over the years by the former Department for Planning and Infrastructure and, separately, by both the
planning and transport agencies point out that the real issue in the movement of dangerous goods relates to
explosives; compressed gas such as oxygen, propane or aerosols; flammable liquids such as paint, gasoline or
diesel fuel; oxidising substances; toxic substances, previously known as poisons; infectious substances; corrosive
7744
[ASSEMBLY — Wednesday, 22 October 2014]
substances; or miscellaneous goods that potentially pose a risk if there is a spillage. Most of the reports done on
the danger of rail freight passing in proximity to housing or other sensitive areas highlight that the greatest point
of danger is at level crossings, where there is the intersection of both road and rail. That is where the greatest
potential for any spillage is.
As part of raising this issue today, I want to highlight the number of level crossings on the railway lines
generally throughout my electorate, but more particularly on the freight rail line. Within my electorate alone the
freight rail line goes through about six crossings. For areas within about 20 kilometres of the CBD, that is a lot of
level crossings these days. As an aside, I point out that in Victoria, as part of the ongoing election campaign, the
Labor Party is promising to get rid of a significant number of level crossings. That appears to have very
widespread community support. We can, of course, do mitigating things to make things safer. No doubt this
legislation provides the potential to make the system safer and reduce the likelihood of any accident or risk.
Likewise, there are mitigating opportunities such as trains travelling at lower speeds through residential areas,
train drivers not applying the brakes as much, or putting in buffering systems and the like. In the past, I have had
lots of correspondence about those opportunities with various ministers and departments. As I mentioned a few
moments ago, as part of the planning charrette process in 1997 this option was raised; I also suggested that
a redevelopment authority be established for Midland. I did that having previously served on the East Perth
Redevelopment Authority and having previously worked for Hon Kay Hallahan when she was a Minister for
Planning and had responsibility for EPRA and also the Subiaco Redevelopment Authority. I saw this as a way of
getting coordinated planning happening, rather than just relying on local government. My experience from
having done some studies of it was that these redevelopment authorities work best when a large amount of
government land is involved, which was the case in East Perth. When the government has lot of industrial land,
there is a tendency for nothing much to happen and there is the competing influence with the local government
authority. I campaigned for several years to get the Midland Redevelopment Authority established. I made quite
a few grievances in this place to various ministers of the day and a couple of those early grievances were met
with the outright rejection of my idea. Ultimately, though, having done nothing on the Midland railway
workshops site for about seven years, other than having closed it down and got rid of the jobs there, the
government of the day decided that it would at last accede to my request to establish the
Midland Redevelopment Authority. That has been a good thing and certainly has helped us with the planning of
the area. These days, things have certainly progressed. The City of Swan, the Midland Redevelopment Authority
and also the State Planning Commission have been involved in the planning process to establish the new freight
line. In previous years, a number of routes for the freight rail line were looked at and they were all named after
different colours, and various degrees of public consultation have taken place on that. Also, government has
done economic impact analyses on the various options. Indeed, I think a couple of years ago now the WA
Planning Commission settled on a route and the government has agreed to it. In that time I have had
correspondence with the Minister for Planning, the member for Kalamunda, Hon John Day, and previous
transport ministers. They have made it very clear to me that the route has been settled and agreed upon. The
cost–benefit analyses have been done and the shire and the Midland Redevelopment Authority contributed to
that process. At long last, there is no excuse, other than perhaps money, for why the government should not go
ahead with realigning that freight rail line.
I think the freight rail line has become a necessity now that we have the new hospital, and a number of
complementary businesses will go to that area. Ten years ago there was not a proposal for a hospital there. As
I said, 20 years ago Midland was more of a country town and it was not under a lot of pressure to develop.
Indeed, the Swan District Hospital—the major hospital for the region—is located on the periphery of Midland
and was very much like a little local district hospital that might be seen in a country area; it has grown a bit like
Topsy to gradually become a huge metropolitan hospital. That is why when we were in government, we faced
the challenge of whether to significantly redevelop it or build a new hospital in the region. We took the option of
utilising the land on the site of the old Midland railway workshops that had become available to centralise the
hospital in Midland. Likewise, we also took the decision to move the saleyards. Again, they were in the
immediate vicinity. Essentially, the hospital is right next door to the Midland railway workshops and very close
to the centre of Midland. We determined that we would relocate the saleyards to Muchea. That process took
some five or six years to finalise and get agreement on, and to get the money on budget so we could make that
commitment to start works at Muchea and relocate the saleyards out of the centre of Midland. The picture I want
to paint is that these are not some nimby residents saying they would prefer the rail line to not go past their place.
There has been really significant development. An aerial map of the town of Midland and its commercial centre
shows that there was a site on the other side of the railway where the workshops were that was virtually
equivalent in size to the town site, and adjoining that were the saleyards. Anyone who has been to Midland
recently will have seen the magnificent developments that have taken place there. Police traffic, forensics and
communications have been relocated there. About a thousand police personnel work at the police facility at the
Midland railway workshops site. That will be immediately across the road from the new hospital, which will be
a huge employer of people in Midland.
[Member’s time extended.]
[ASSEMBLY — Wednesday, 22 October 2014]
7745
Mrs M.H. ROBERTS: Likewise, a lot of whitegoods and similar style big stores have moved to the
Midland Central shopping district, and there is now a large population there. Effectively, the freight rail line
traverses the residents in Woodbridge, cutting the area in two.
One thing I certainly commend the government on, although I might have liked to have seen it happen sooner, is
the sinking of the road at Lloyd Street. Effectively, there will be an underpass there under the railway line. I went
to a community briefing one evening a few weeks ago in Bellevue at which people were informed about what
was happening with the changed traffic routes and how long the Lloyd Street extension process would take. It
will take the best part of a year and is already significantly inconveniencing many residents in the local area and
people who traverse it. However, I think people universally agree that the long-term benefit will be absolutely
sensational, so I am very, very pleased to see it going ahead. In the early studies—I will not be able to refer to
them all—there was a conflict between road use and rail use at Lloyd Street because it is a huge rail crossing as
both the freight rail line and the passenger line are there. Sinking Lloyd Street is an enormous and expensive
project but it will result in there being no delay in people crossing from what is, effectively, one half of Midland
to the other. There is just as much of the city centre on the Midland railway workshops side between the railway
line and Helena River as there is in the commercial precinct of the town of Midland. That has always been one of
the very significant issues and costs when we have looked at moving the freight rail line in Midland. It will
certainly reduce what is a significant conflict between road use and rail use at Lloyd Street. That part is very,
very welcome.
I will fast-track to where we are now. There is agreement among the City of Swan, the Midland Redevelopment
Authority, the Department of Planning and, I assume also, the Department of Transport about where the freight
rail realignment needs to be and how that should happen. However, the real problem is that as of yet there is no
commitment from government to fund that realignment. My clear view is that needs to happen sooner rather than
later. Through the work of the Metropolitan Redevelopment Authority in the City of Swan we have seen
hundreds more people move to live within the vicinity of the freight rail line. A huge amount of development has
occurred in the town centre of Midland. Certainly more residents have moved in there, and significant
redevelopment has also occurred on the other side of the railway line, the side that contains the former
Midland railway workshops, the saleyards and other big property holdings. Ultimately, we expect to see
Lloyd Street continue right through to Abernethy Road, and although I understand that some money is available
to go towards that project, not all the money is available at this stage. I want to make it very clear to the minister
that my residents, particularly those in Woodbridge, have suffered long enough. The process has taken some
eight years to finally get agreement on the realignment. The cost–benefit analyses have been done and,
thankfully, funding has been provided to resolve the conflict with the level crossing at Lloyd Street and that
project is underway. Clearly, we need the next stage of the realignment of the freight rail through Midland to
occur. The minister has had the transport portfolio for only a short time, but hopefully he will be aware of the
“Kewdale–Hazelmere integrated master plan” and the issues with the freight line through Midland. If the
minister is not aware of it, I implore him to familiarise himself with those issues and do the right thing by the
people of Midland and Woodbridge to alleviate their issues regarding not only the noise, but also dangerous
goods being transported in close proximity to their homes and other sensitive land uses. I ask the minister to do
the right thing by the town of Midland and to allow the City of Swan to have the economic opportunities that the
realignment of the freight rail line would give us.
MR M.P. MURRAY (Collie–Preston) [1.52 pm]: I was nearly caught unawares; I will now proceed. I will
follow on what that the member for Midland said and talk not so much about the Rail Safety National Law (WA)
Bill 2014 itself, but how the bill will be activated and utilised along the way. I have some concerns about some
of the lower levels and how the rail lessees conduct their business. They are very reluctant to upgrade buildings
along the line that come under their lease. The Collie roundhouse in its time was the most modern roundhouse
where steam trains were serviced in a semicircular building. There was a big turning circle out the front of the
building so the trains could be turned around after the service and then sent back the other way. That building is
in a disgraceful condition. As much as we and the shire have complained for probably the last 20 years —
The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr I.M. Britza): Excuse me, member. I ask that members in the house keep the
volume of their conversation down a little.
Mr M.P. MURRAY: It is an asbestos-clad building, so no-one can use it for social uses, crafts or that type of
thing because of the amount of work that needs to be done to it. Despite many requests, the building has
remained in the same condition. Under the safety laws, this responsibility should be forced upon the people who
lease the building. There is no real management of that area and young children can get into the building, and
they certainly do, probably having a shot at the pigeons with their shanghais and those sorts of things. It is about
time that the lessees were forced under the issue of safety to do something about the building.
Further down the rail line towards Collie is a foot crossing that has been there for many years. The council has
asked to have it shifted about 400 metres along the line to connect the town in the centre. The lessee has said it
will do it but at a cost of $400 000 for just the relocation, and of course the council has not done it. When the
7746
[ASSEMBLY — Wednesday, 22 October 2014]
kids knock off school, the ones who do not want to walk over the new heritage overhead railway bridge jump the
fence in front of the trains and run across the line. Those sorts of safety issues should be addressed under this bill
and certainly pushed down to another level than that dealt with by Parliament. When a community asks to
change the siting of a walkway, it is a management issue, and the community should not have to foot the bill.
They are just two small issues that I have seen in the Collie location.
We also have problems with Brookfield Rail leasing out rail reserves to farmers. Even the firebreaks along the
line are leased at a substantial cost to farmers because it is their roadway, even if they have only one crossing
and even though it is a disused line. I am talking about the rail line in the Boyanup area where people have to
travel about 400 or 500 metres from their gateway along the line, and are charged over $1 000 a year to access
their own property. If Brookfield Rail were serious about its community obligation, it would not charge people
for access. This has been an ongoing issue and quite a few letters have been written and debates had appealing
the charge for driving along a disused rail line. Brookfield Rail’s standard line is that it is charged right across
the board and it should not make any difference. It feels that the charge of $1 000 a year for a farmer to access
their property is reasonable; I do not think it is one bit. Again, this is a safety issue on a line that has not been
used for the last 15 years. Where does safety come into it? Sure, along other parts of the line people make
a living out of the extra areas that the farmers take to put more cows on their property; they stretch the fence
right up to the rail reserve and include some of the rail reserve in their property. Although they are not happy
about paying the charge, there is some financial gain for those people. However, the ones who are not making
a financial gain—the Reids are one family from Boyanup that come to mind, along with many others—are
concerned about why they are charged $1 000 to cross over a line that is not used. Again, I think this is more
about the almighty dollar than any safety issue.
I was quite interested to hear the member for Midland talk about safety and noise from the railway line. In our
area, we would love to see railway line usage increase, even though it does go through the middle of the town.
One of the annoying things to come out of that is the compulsory use of the hooter when the train comes through
the town at three o’clock in the morning. The people living right next to that line can tell whether the train has
a new driver because he blows the hooter, “Whoo!”, for one or two seconds—that is a bit hard for Hansard to
transcribe—whereas the usual drivers just give it a short blast. It certainly keeps people awake at night and the
reality is that it discourages people from buying property next to the railway line.
Those areas should be covered by boom gates so that train drivers do not use hooters in the middle of the night
thereby disturbing nearly all of Collie. Despite the train line going through the centre of Collie, we would
welcome more train usage to get trucks off the road. The site at the end of the use of steam trains was
remarkable. I have seen photos of between 50 and 60 locos lined up on the railway line in Collie.
Debate adjourned, pursuant to standing orders.
QUESTIONS WITHOUT NOTICE
LOCAL GOVERNMENT ADVISORY BOARD REPORT —
METROPOLITAN LOCAL GOVERNMENT REFORM
835.
Mr M. McGOWAN to the Premier:
I refer to the planned amalgamations and boundary changes for local government, which were announced today.
Can the Premier explain to the house why ratepayers in the areas of Canning, Bassendean, Kalamunda and
Serpentine–Jarrahdale, amongst others, will not get a vote on their council’s future while ratepayers in other
areas such as South Perth will get such a vote?
Mr C.J. BARNETT replied:
The time for local government reform is well and truly now.
An opposition member: Answer the question!
Mr C.J. BARNETT: I am answering it as I wish.
There are 138 local authorities in Western Australia. There are several authorities comprising less than five
square kilometres in area and a significant number of councils have fewer than 1 000 people, some have fewer
than 500 people.
Several members interjected.
The SPEAKER: Member for Armadale, I call you to order for the first time.
Mr C.J. BARNETT: From either my count or the minister’s count, there have been nine major reports into local
government—eight such reports since the Second World War. They all basically came to the same conclusion
and now this government is finally prepared to make the reforms. Why? We want reform to provide better value
for money to ratepayers.
[ASSEMBLY — Wednesday, 22 October 2014]
7747
Mr D.J. Kelly: Answer the question.
The SPEAKER: Member for Bassendean, I call you to order for the first time. The question, Premier, was on
polls.
Mr D.J. Kelly: People want to know why they’re not going to get a vote.
The SPEAKER: Member for Bassendean, I call you to order for the second time.
Mr C.J. BARNETT: We will have a functional and modern structure for local government in metropolitan
Perth, which is where 75 per cent of the population of this state live. That is what we are going to do. This
process has been going on for four years. It has got to the point at which, unfortunately, local government seems
to be incapable of reforming itself. That is where we are at. For four years it has not achieved reform despite
publicly supporting reform. The government is doing what we probably always said we would do—namely, we
are taking control of the process to get the result, and the result will be a reduction in Perth metropolitan councils
from 30 to 16.
Mr D.A. Templeman interjected.
The SPEAKER: Member for Mandurah, I call you to order for the first time.
Mr C.J. BARNETT: Today, the government released the full report of the Local Government Advisory Board.
We indicated that we accepted the recommendations about the boundaries, with the exception of the City of
Perth, and, therefore, consequentially, with the proposed western suburbs, but we made it very clear that we
support the amalgamation of the five western suburbs.
Mr B.S. Wyatt interjected.
The SPEAKER: Member for Victoria Park, I now call you to order for the first time.
Mr C.J. BARNETT: The Minister for Local Government and I have made it very clear to local government that
we are now proceeding to achieve that. It will be a mix of legislation, amalgamations and boundary changes; and
it may take a couple of years. It is not our number one priority. It is a long way off that, but you watch: this
government —
Several members interjected.
The SPEAKER: Member for West Swan, I call you to order for the first time.
Mr C.J. BARNETT: Local government reform—in this case, for metropolitan Perth—will happen. The
interesting point is this: there will be legislation with respect to the City of Perth, which is supported by the
City of Perth, the Town of Vincent, the business community and planning institutes. When that legislation comes
to Parliament with almost universal support, what will the Labor Party do? Will it vote against it? What is it
going to do, because it does not have a policy?
Ms R. Saffioti interjected.
The SPEAKER: Member for West Swan, I call you to order for the second time.
Mr C.J. BARNETT: In conclusion, the Leader of the Opposition has only one thing to do.
Several members interjected.
Mr C.J. BARNETT: We know our policy—we are doing it.
Several members interjected.
Mr C.J. BARNETT: Mr Speaker, this is absurd. Grow up!
The SPEAKER: Member for Victoria Park, I call you to order for the second time.
Mr C.J. BARNETT: The only thing that the Leader of the Opposition has to do with his colleagues is decide
what the opposition’s policy will be.
Mr B.S. Wyatt: What is your policy?
Mr C.J. BARNETT: It is 16 local authorities across Perth—done and dusted. The maps are there. That is what
we are going to do.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT ADVISORY BOARD REPORT —
METROPOLITAN LOCAL GOVERNMENT REFORM
836.
Mr M. McGOWAN to the Premier:
I ask a supplementary question. Why has the Premier created three classes of citizens—those who get a vote,
those who do not get a vote and those in his electorate who are not subject to this process?
7748
[ASSEMBLY — Wednesday, 22 October 2014]
Mr C.J. BARNETT replied:
I assure members that people in my electorate know that the policy of the Liberal government is the
amalgamation of the five western suburb councils. The only reason for rejecting the boundaries for the western
suburbs is because we intend to take the Queen Elizabeth II Medical Centre and the University of Western
Australia from the western suburbs and place them in the City of Perth. Therefore, we cannot accept a boundary
that we will not keep.
Mr M. McGowan: Why aren’t you legislating like you are for Perth?
Mr C.J. BARNETT: It is because we are creating something very special for the City of Perth.
Several members interjected.
Mr C.J. BARNETT: It is evident that the Labor Party has no idea what to do.
Several members interjected.
The SPEAKER: Member for Victoria Park, we are now five minutes into question time and I am about to call
you for the third time.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT ADVISORY BOARD REPORT —
METROPOLITAN LOCAL GOVERNMENT REFORM
837.
Mr I.M. BRITZA to the Minister for Local Government:
Before I ask my question I acknowledge the students and teachers from Servite College, which is in the
electorate of the member for Balcatta.
I understand that earlier today the Minister for Local Government released the Local Government Advisory
Board report for metropolitan local government reform. Can he please advise the house what the report means
for ratepayers and the community more broadly in the Perth metropolitan area?
Mr A.J. SIMPSON replied:
I thank the member for Morley for his question and for his interest in local government, but, more importantly,
sustainable local government.
Today the government announced its final blueprint plan for local government in the metropolitan area. As the
Premier pointed out, there have been eight reports in the past 50-odd years all of which have tried to come up
with a conclusion. This government has had the guts to make a decision and to get on with the job.
I will pick up on a couple of points that opposition members made about why one area will get a vote and why
another will not.
Mr D.A. Templeman interjected.
The SPEAKER: Member for Mandurah, I call you to order for the second time; and, member for Armadale,
I call you to order for the second time. Direct your answer through the Chair, please.
Mr A.J. SIMPSON: I make a comment about the Local Government Advisory Board and what is clearly stated
in the act. Having gone through a process, the board gave me 38 proposals. As I have said in this place many
times before, when a report comes back to me I can do one of two things—I can either accept or reject, but
I cannot amend. The advisory board gave me boundary adjustments and amalgamations. I cannot change that.
That is what is stated in the act—I either accept or reject. It was good this morning to make the announcement to
the sector.
There are 325 councillors for 30 metropolitan councils. There are more councillors in the western suburbs than
there are members in this house.
Mr D.A. Templeman interjected.
The SPEAKER: Member for Mandurah, I now call you for the third time, and I ask you to please now let the
minister answer the question.
Mr A.J. SIMPSON: The member for Morley raised a very good question. Some comments were made about the
size of some local governments, and the most important thing that the Local Government Advisory Board looked
at was developing the community of interest and also the economic benefit to the community; hence why there
are variations still. It is ultimately very well known in the local government world that with 100 000 residents the
actual rate base is becoming a quite compatible rate. We have not achieved that 100 per cent, but we have
developed some great communities. It is great to see the Mayor of Fremantle very supportive of Fremantle, our
second capital city. More importantly, it is also good to see support from the Chamber of Commerce and
Industry of Western Australia and the Urban Development Institute of Australia, and a number of mayors who
[ASSEMBLY — Wednesday, 22 October 2014]
7749
have been very supportive. It is all about delivering good local government that can deliver better services to the
ratepayers.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT REFORM — FUNDING
838.
Mr D.A. TEMPLEMAN to the Minister for Local Government:
I refer to the minister’s mangled announcement today of changes to local government and the significant
information withheld by him.
(1)
Will the minister reveal today the total costs for these changes?
(2)
If the minister will not reveal these costs, why is he continually and deliberately hiding this
information?
Mr A.J. SIMPSON replied:
(1)–(2) I have not hidden anything from the sector at all. We have been through this process.
Dr A.D. Buti interjected.
The SPEAKER: Member for Armadale!
Mr A.J. SIMPSON: Just so that we understand, I think the member may be referring to —
Ms R. Saffioti interjected.
The SPEAKER: Member for West Swan!
Mr A.J. SIMPSON: I think the member may be referring to the amount of money that is on the table—the
$60 million. I have made the statement quite clear in this house on a number of occasions that just over
$3 million per new local government will be borne out of this process. It is similar to Queensland, it is even the
same as New South Wales —
Mr P. Papalia: It is $220 million!
Mr A.J. SIMPSON: No. I ask the member a question: how much does the state government put towards it?
Several members interjected.
Mr A.J. SIMPSON: Very good!
The SPEAKER: Member for West Swan, I have called you twice and we are 10 minutes into question time.
Member for Warnbro, I do not want to hear from you. Minister, I do not want you to be asking questions across
the floor; you will answer through the Chair. Thank you.
Mr A.J. SIMPSON: Sorry, Mr Speaker. This government has made a decision. Local government reform is now
a blueprint to move forward. The sector is supportive of it. It is now time to get on with the job and deliver good
services for the ratepayers.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT REFORM — FUNDING
839.
Mr D.A. TEMPLEMAN to the Minister for Local Government:
I have a supplementary question.
Several members interjected.
The SPEAKER: Member for Wanneroo, the member for Mandurah does not need your help. I call you to order
for the first time.
Mr D.A. TEMPLEMAN: After five years, why will the minister not tell the people of Western Australia how
much this process will cost them?
Mr A.J. SIMPSON replied:
I think I have answered the question already. The most important part is that we are delivering good local
government for the ratepayers of Western Australia. We will work through the process. Members opposite are
always talking about the cost but there are also some savings involved. If we take out the $6.3 million a year of
ratepayers’ funds that will not be spent on the mayors, presidents and councillors, those savings alone will go
back to the ratepayers to deliver better services to them.
SHORT-STAY VISITOR ACCOMMODATION FACILITY — DERBY
840.
Mr I.C. BLAYNEY to the Minister for Housing:
Firstly, I acknowledge on behalf of the member for Perth the presence in the gallery of the students and teachers
of Aranmore Catholic College.
What is the Liberal–National government doing to assist Aboriginal visitors to towns such as Derby?
7750
[ASSEMBLY — Wednesday, 22 October 2014]
Mr W.R. MARMION replied:
I thank the member for Geraldton for a very good question.
I would like to advise the house of a terrific facility that the state government has built in Derby. It is the second
short-stay visitor accommodation facility that the Liberal–National government has built with the help of
government royalties for regions money. The first one was built in the member for Kalgoorlie’s electorate and is
a terrific facility run by the Australian Red Cross. The short-stay accommodation that I opened in Derby this
month has 54 beds. It was budgeted at $11.3 million and it came in on time and under budget. It is a fantastic
facility. It has eight units that can each accommodate four people—that is, four beds in eight units. There are
another 22 single-accommodation units with ensuite, air conditioning, remote control and closed-circuit
television from the reception area. It is in a gated community and has fantastic landscaping. The orientation by
the architects is first-class with north–south orientation and verandahed corridors for when it rains so that when it
rains quite heavily in Derby, the people in the accommodation units will not get wet during the monsoon season.
I would like to congratulate Cooper and Oxley, the builders of this wonderful facility, and the Shire of
Derby–West Kimberley, in particular the shire president, Elsia Archer. I actually got her name wrong. I have
known Elsia Archer for 36 years but at the opening night I accidentally called her “Elsie”. She does not like that
at all and she got very cross. The spelling is Elsia, but it is better to say “Elsa” than “Elsie”. She got over it very
quickly. It is probably the best facility in Derby at the moment. The landscaping not only of the facility, but also
along Knowsley Street, which has a northerly aspect, now has a new footpath and lighting and, of course, the car
park entry is off Ashley Street. If people are going to Derby, it is something that they would want to go and see
because it is such an outstanding facility. One of the good things about this facility—I know it is winding-up
time, Mr Speaker—is that three government departments plus two not-for-profit service delivery agencies were
involved in delivering this facility. My department was involved in the construction; the Department for Child
Protection and Family Support was involved in acquiring the service delivery program for the not-for-profits;
and one important department—although the minister is not present in the chamber—the Department of
Corrective Services is providing all the meals and also doing all the landscaping. It is a wonderful facility and
was very well done by all three departments involved; and congratulations to MercyCare and
Centacare Kimberley for running a wonderful facility for Western Australians.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT REFORM — MINISTER FOR LOCAL GOVERNMENT’S COMMENTS
841.
Mr M. McGOWAN to the Premier:
I refer to comments by the Minister for Local Government today that this is only, and I quote, “half-time” in the
local government amalgamation process. Given that this process started in 2009 under the Premier, does this not
mean that, under the Premier, state and local government will have another five years of uncertainty, confusion
and waste?
Mr C.J. BARNETT replied:
This is absolutely mind-splitting—the intellect of the Leader of the Opposition. To have a question of such
a puerile nature tells us something —
Mr M. McGowan: Is it half-time or isn’t it?
Mr C.J. BARNETT: Half-time! What does the Leader of the Opposition want me to say; that the third quarter is
the premiership quarter? I mean, this is just nonsense!
Several members interjected.
Mr C.J. BARNETT: Ask a serious question.
Several members interjected.
The SPEAKER: Members!
Mr C.J. BARNETT: If that is the best the Leader of the Opposition can do!
Mr M. McGowan: We’re quoting your minister from this morning. So he’s a fool, is he?
Mr C.J. BARNETT: Mr Speaker, this guy is just something else!
Several members interjected.
The SPEAKER: Right! Come one, Premier, through the Chair, please.
Ms M.M. Quirk: Give us some star jumps!
Mr C.J. BARNETT: Does the member know why I did star jumps? I will tell her the story behind that one day.
Ms M.M. Quirk: I was there!
Mr C.J. BARNETT: Yes, and I will tell her the story behind it one day.
[ASSEMBLY — Wednesday, 22 October 2014]
7751
I imagine that the turn of phrase by the minister was referring to the point that we have now a clear
plan—a blueprint. We, as a government, have accepted that local governments will go from 30 to 16. There will
be a variety of methods to achieve that. We have got to that critical point. If members like, we have climbed the
mountain and we are now on the way down. It will not take five years. Ask a sensible question. Do a bit of
homework.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT REFORM — MINISTER FOR LOCAL GOVERNMENT’S COMMENTS
842.
Mr M. McGOWAN to the Premier:
I have a supplementary question. The Premier just indicated to the house that we will end up with 16 local
councils. The Premier indicated that it would not take another five years. When will this process be concluded
and we will have 16 councils?
Mr C.J. BARNETT replied:
As I have said—I said this this morning to the local government representatives—this is important reform.
Mr M. McGowan: I’m talking about a time frame.
Mr C.J. BARNETT: I am telling the member. It is important reform; “important” implies a timeliness. For
a hundred years people have been talking about reform, particularly in the post-war period. Is this the
government’s number one issue? No, it is not; it is a long way off it.
Mr B.S. Wyatt interjected.
The SPEAKER: Member for Victoria Park!
Mr C.J. BARNETT: Mr Speaker —
Mr P. Papalia interjected.
The SPEAKER: Member for Warnbro!
Mr C.J. BARNETT: Mr Speaker, I am trying to address the Chair.
This is not our number one issue but it is important after a hundred years that we get sensible reform in local
government, in this case working on Perth.
Mr P. Papalia interjected.
The SPEAKER: Member for Warnbro! I call you to order for the first time.
Mr C.J. BARNETT: We have got to the stage of having a clear policy of reducing the number of local
governments from 30 to 16. Bear in mind that the cabinet of Western Australia has endorsed this policy. It has
been passed, I have signed off —
Several members interjected.
Mr C.J. BARNETT: No, the cabinet has signed off. I have signed off as Premier.
Several members interjected.
The SPEAKER: Members!
Mr C.J. BARNETT: No. I want to explain this point because perhaps members opposite do not understand. The
cabinet has made the decision and I have signed off as Premier. This policy now applies to every agency of
government across the board.
The SPEAKER: The member for Kalgoorlie.
Point of Order
Mr M. McGOWAN: Mr Speaker, I was going to take a point of order on relevance. Is the Premier not going to
answer when it will be concluded? It is a point of relevance, Mr Speaker. Has the Premier finished his answer?
Mr C.J. Barnett: I have finished.
The SPEAKER: The member for Kalgoorlie.
REGIONAL GRANTS SCHEME
843.
Ms W.M. DUNCAN to the Minister for Regional Development:
Can the minister please provide some details on the latest round of the regional grants scheme?
Mr D.T. REDMAN replied:
I thank —
Mr B.J. Grylls interjected.
7752
[ASSEMBLY — Wednesday, 22 October 2014]
Mr D.T. REDMAN: I am pleased for your support, member for Pilbara.
I thank the member for Kalgoorlie for her question and of course her support for all things regional.
We know that in the Liberal–National government’s royalties for regions program, we have a strong focus on
transformational projects. Large projects make a significant difference and leave a long-term legacy in the
growth and development of the state —
Mr P.B. Watson interjected.
The SPEAKER: Member for Albany!
Mr D.T. REDMAN: — with things like the Southern Inland Health Initiative, which I talked about yesterday,
and other substantial projects like Pilbara Cities, and also things like the Ord expansion, which are projects that
had been sitting in abeyance for some time. This government has stepped up to the plate and we have been able
to deliver some substantial outcomes in these areas.
But it is also important to focus on the little things—the little groups in our community that do fantastic work but
sometimes do not have the resources to enable them to achieve the outcomes that they would like to achieve,
particularly in regional areas, where they can be isolated, and sometimes where they are distant from certain
groups and so on to get the economies of scale. We have had in the past a program called the regional grants
scheme under which those smaller groups were able to access resources in a timely way in order to make a big
difference to their particular projects. I will give some examples of that. We have had about 700 different
projects across the state, delivering almost $50 million of programs out to regional Western Australia, with
things like flood recovery projects in the Gascoyne; a new floor at the Kalgoorlie playgroup; some upgrades at
Mount Clarence for the Anzac centenary that is coming up in Albany; the Mowanjum Art and Culture Centre in
the Kimberley; improvements to the St John Ambulance station at Yalgoo; new change rooms at the
Pinjarra football club; a biodiesel plant through the Ashburton Aboriginal Corporation in the Pilbara; and the
Tin Horse Highway at Kulin, which is a fantastic project; and also, for the member for Collie–Preston,
a refurbishment of the Meals on Wheels building in Collie. I am sure the member for Collie–Preston would be
happy about that.
I am sure that the house would be very pleased that the Liberal–National government has now approved a further
$30 million for the next round, to be distributed through to 2015. There are two components to the program—
namely some large grants, and what we call community chest grants. It consist of $10 million for larger grants,
ranging between $20 000 and $300 000, and $3.3 million for smaller community chest grants of up to $20 000.
This will be administered through the development commissions. They will ensure that there is good local
decision making and that the projects are very, very relevant to those small groups in the community that make
a big difference.
Once again, on top of the substantial work that this Liberal–National government is doing in regional Western
Australia, sometimes the little things count. The regional grants scheme is such a scheme, and we look forward
to the rollout of this next phase.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT — AMALGAMATIONS
844.
Mr P.B. WATSON to the Leader of the National Party:
Is it National Party policy to support the boundary changes released by the Premier today, which
overwhelmingly involve forced amalgamations of councils?
Mr D.T. REDMAN replied:
The policy of the National Party has been clear. We do not support forced amalgamations.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT — AMALGAMATIONS
845.
Mr P.B. WATSON to the Leader of the National Party:
I ask a supplementary question. Why would the National Party support our motion yesterday against forced
amalgamations and then be passive about these changes today?
Mr D.T. REDMAN replied:
I do not think the National Party has been passive on the issue.
Several members interjected.
The SPEAKER: Member for Warnbro, I call you to order for the second time, and member for West Swan for
the third time.
Mr D.T. REDMAN: The National Party has been very clear on its position.
Several members interjected.
[ASSEMBLY — Wednesday, 22 October 2014]
7753
The SPEAKER: Members! Minister, just answer the question through the Chair, please.
Mr D.T. REDMAN: Thank you, Mr Speaker.
The National Party is clear on its position. When matters are raised in cabinet that relate to issues where we have
a difference of opinion with the Liberal Party, we reserve the right to step outside the cabinet process.
Several members interjected.
The SPEAKER: Members! Member for Bassendean! Member for Armadale, you are now on 3.75.
POLICE — PURSUIT LEGISLATION
846.
Mr P. ABETZ to the Acting Minister for Police:
In light of recent media reports on police pursuits, can the Acting Minister for Police please inform the house on
the impact of the pursuit legislation that was introduced in December 2012?
Mr J.H.D. DAY replied:
I thank the member for Southern River for the question, and I know that this issue is causing a lot of concern to
the community. People driving recklessly and at high speed on our roads are clearly a major threat, partly to
themselves, but more importantly to other members of the community and to police officers who have to try to
deal with those difficult situations.
Unfortunately, so far in this month of October, there have been 15 full police pursuits in the metropolitan area.
I think members will recall that in December 2012, amendments to the Road Traffic Act were passed, having
been introduced by this government, to address the concerns that people have about this issue. Included in that
legislation was the provision of greater protection to police officers who are engaged in emergency driving—that
is, if they are undertaking those duties in accordance with police guidelines and are driving reasonably in the
circumstances, they will have a greater level of protection than was the case previously.
In relation to the offenders, the amendments to the Road Traffic Act created offences for reckless driving while
seeking to escape a pursuit by the police; dangerous driving causing bodily harm while seeking to escape
a pursuit by the police; and dangerous driving causing death or serious injury while seeking to escape a pursuit
by the police. These offences now carry with them some tough mandatory minimum sentences that reflect the
government’s commitment to deterring and ensuring there is adequate punishment for offenders who are putting
at substantial risk the lives of police officers and other members of the public, as I have said, not to mention
themselves.
So it is the case now, for people who are apprehended and charged and convicted of these sorts of offences, that
reckless driving while seeking to escape a pursuit carries a minimum two-year licence disqualification and
a minimum of six months’ imprisonment; dangerous driving causing bodily harm while seeking to escape
a pursuit carries a mandatory minimum sentence of six months’ imprisonment; and dangerous driving causing
death or serious injury while seeking to escape a pursuit will result in a mandatory minimum prison sentence of
12 months. As of 31 May this year, 3 538 offenders have been charged with pursuit offences since the legislation
was initiated in December 2012. As I have mentioned, so far this month there have been 15 police pursuits in the
metropolitan area. That is clearly 15 too many. But we are keen to ensure that, as I have said, people who are
charged and convicted of these offences understand the consequences of their very dangerous behaviour, and we
are keen to ensure that our police officers are properly supported and that the lives of innocent people on our
roads are protected to the maximum possible extent that we can.
LOCAL GOVERNMENT — AMALGAMATIONS
847.
Mr M. McGOWAN to the Leader of National Party:
The Premier said that the local government amalgamation process was signed off on by cabinet. If it is
National Party policy not to participate in this process, did the Leader of the National Party participate in the
cabinet deliberations in relation to this policy decision, and did he sign off on this decision as a member of
cabinet?
Mr D.T. REDMAN replied:
Just to make the point for the opposition, the arrangement that we have in place is an alliance arrangement
between the Liberal Party and the National Party. I think sometimes that is not fully understood. From time to
time, there are differences in policy positions, and what we have been able to very effectively do over the last
six years is manage the governance of this state to achieve fantastic outcomes for all of regional Western
Australia and all of Western Australia. We have been able to deliver fantastic outcomes.
Several members interjected.
7754
[ASSEMBLY — Wednesday, 22 October 2014]
The SPEAKER: Member for Albany, I call you to order for the first time.
Mr D.T. REDMAN: Thank you, Mr Speaker.
Mr P.B. Watson interjected.
The SPEAKER: Member for Albany, I call you to order for the second time.
Mr D.T. REDMAN: One of the principles of that relationship is that when cabinet decisions are made and there
is a difference of view, then, as I said in answer to the last question, the National Party reserves the right to step
outside of the cabinet process. I am not going to talk in this house about cabinet processes.
Several members interjected.
The SPEAKER: Member for Butler, I call you to order for the first time. I do not want a wall of noise.
Mr D.T. REDMAN: It is absolutely appropriate to not talk about cabinet processes in Parliament. The
opposition is talking about cabinet decisions. I highlight again two really important points: firstly, we have
a very effective alliance relationship that has delivered really good outcomes for Western Australia; and,
secondly, as part of that alliance process, if there are strong differences of views, the National Party reserves the
right to not be part of the cabinet process when it makes some decisions.
CITY OF PERTH–TOWN OF VINCENT AMALGAMATION — NATIONAL PARTY POSITION
848.
Mr M. McGOWAN to the Leader of the National Party:
I have a supplementary question. Will the National Party be voting for the act to forcibly amalgamate the City of
Perth and the Town of Vincent, and will the Leader of the National Party be participating in implementing this
policy as the Premier said it would?
Mr D.T. REDMAN replied:
I am not sure that is a supplementary question, because it introduces a whole heap of new information. The
National Party quite rightly will consider all legislation if and when it comes to this house.
KWINANA FREEWAY — WIDENING PROJECT
849.
Mr M.H. TAYLOR to the Minister for Transport:
The minister recently announced that the scope of the Kwinana Freeway widening project has been increased.
Can he advise exactly what is being delivered and how this will reduce congestion?
Mr D.C. NALDER replied:
From the outset I have talked about the challenges of a growing city and the need for us to plan more
effectively —
Mr D.J. Kelly: Ten, nine, eight, seven, six, five —
The SPEAKER: Member for Bassendean, I call you to order for the third time; you are also on a countdown.
Mr D.C. NALDER: From the outset there is a need for us to focus on longer term planning to complement
“Directions 2031: Draft Spatial Framework for Perth and Peel”. There is a need for us to focus on better roads
and better public transport and to find smarter of ways of utilising our existing infrastructure. Yesterday,
I introduced an initiative of the government that will utilise existing infrastructure in a smarter way. Today,
I talked about initiatives that will deliver better roads to the public of Western Australia. Thankfully, because of
the close working relationship that this government has with its federal counterparts, it is able to look at ways of
delivering a far better outcome for the road users of Western Australia. The intersection that we are talking about
at the corner of Roe Highway and the Kwinana Freeway currently has 52 000 vehicles a day passing through it,
and that is projected to rise to 75 000 vehicles by 2021; therefore, we need to do something. Through the
efficient use of developing infrastructure, the government has delivered two lanes instead of one all the way
through to Armadale Road. That means for cars coming off Roe Highway—we all know that it is a difficult
intersection that gets clogged up every day—there will be a dedicated lane through to Armadale Road, and that
will greatly convenience all road users moving south in that area. I refer to a large number of road users indeed.
We also know that focusing purely on public transport solutions will not work, because the majority of road
users in that area drive commercial vehicles. Irrespective of the public transport delivered, those road users will
still need good roads so that they can move about in their daily business that provides productivity and a great
economic return for this state. This a fantastic achievement and a great initiative, and it will be great for all road
users.
[ASSEMBLY — Wednesday, 22 October 2014]
7755
INDONESIA — WESTERN AUSTRALIAN TRADE OFFICE
850.
Ms J.M. FREEMAN to the Premier:
I refer to the announced closure of the Western Australian Indonesian trade office in September. WA has been
the only state or territory to maintain a continuous stand-alone presence in Indonesia for the past two decades.
Will the Premier overturn this decision and rule out closing the trade office?
Mr C.J. BARNETT replied:
The trade office has not been closed and no decision has been made with respect to that. What will happen is that
the person who currently holds the position will complete their contract at the end of December, and the
government is deciding what will happen after that. One option that has been reported is to have a person
embedded within Austrade. One of the arguments for not doing so—this is not a criticism of any individual,
including the current representative—is that we do not as a state have connections into the higher levels of
government and business in Indonesia, as we do with virtually every other trade office. That is the reality of the
situation in Jakarta. We are deciding which way we will do it, but no decision has been made. We will certainly
always retain trade representations in Jakarta.
INDONESIA — WESTERN AUSTRALIAN TRADE OFFICE
851.
Ms J.M. FREEMAN to the Premier:
I have a supplementary question.
(1)
Given that Hon Brian Ellis believes that the closure will cost WA business opportunities and given that
we need those higher level contacts, should the Premier not be increasing WA’s presence in Indonesia
to help diversify the state’s economy and making it clear that the office will not close and will continue
to have it stand alone?
(2)
Should the Premier not make that clear now?
Mr C.J. BARNETT replied:
(1)–(2) I thought that I had just answered that question. We are going to retain representation in Indonesia. We
do not have in Indonesia the high level contacts that we have in other posts around the world. That has
as much to do with the structure of business within Jakarta and government. There has been a change of
government in Indonesia, and I intend to go to Indonesia in the new year.
Mr R.H. Cook: Why is there a delegation going?
Mr C.J. BARNETT: Members of Parliament can travel, and I think Indonesia is incredibly important to
Australia and Western Australia. The government has opened a new office in Singapore.
Mr P. Papalia: That is because you closed it.
Mr C.J. BARNETT: No, we never had representation in Singapore. We have now established a senior office in
Singapore.
Mr M. McGowan: You closed Malaysia.
Mr C.J. BARNETT: It is a different office with quite a different level of representation. In Singapore we have
contact at the highest level—ministers and the Prime Minister himself—and we have two other voluntary or
honorary representatives, including former senior ministers, in Singapore who help represent WA. We do not
have the same level of connection in Jakarta that we have in Singapore, and that is what we are addressing. We
may choose to embed someone within Austrade. We may choose to reappoint or appoint a new person; we may
choose to expand it. However, the objective is to reach into the higher levels of government and business in
Jakarta—something that I think everyone agrees is not being achieved under the current model
DISTINGUISHED VISITOR — DR DUNCAN McFETRIDGE
Statement by Speaker
THE SPEAKER (Mr M.W. Sutherland): Before we carry on, I welcome Dr Duncan McFetridge, MP, member
for Morphett in the South Australian Parliament. He is the South Australian shadow Minister for
Emergency Services; Aboriginal Affairs and Reconciliation; Disabilities; and Veterans’ Affairs. I welcome him
to our Parliament today.
SUCCESSION TO THE CROWN BILL 2014
Second Reading
Resumed from 25 February.
MR J.R. QUIGLEY (Butler) [2.38 pm]: I rise to indicate the Labor Party’s concurrence with and support of the
Succession to the Crown Bill 2014, which in essence seeks to effect three things: firstly, to remove the rule of
male preference over females in the line of royal succession; secondly, to remove the rule disqualifying a person
7756
[ASSEMBLY — Wednesday, 22 October 2014]
from succeeding to the Crown or from being a sovereign due to their marriage to a Roman Catholic; and, thirdly,
to repeal the Royal Marriages Act 1772 and replace it with a requirement that the first six persons in the line of
succession obtain the consent of the sovereign before marrying and to validate certain other marriages made void
under the Royal Marriages Act.
The bill also flows from an agreement at the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting of 2011 in which
the Australian states, the Australian government and other dominions of the commonwealth agreed to amend
legislation in this jurisdiction to reflect and give effect to the Succession of Crown Act 2013, an act of the
United Kingdom. That legislation does not have an immediate flow-on effect in Australia because of the
Australia Act 1986. The Parliament of the United Kingdom has seen fit to change the rules about royal
succession. To give effect to those rules throughout the commonwealth, legislation needs to be passed in each of
the jurisdictions in which Her Majesty and the Crown, or the alternative following Her Majesty—the future king
or queen of England—hold that office.
Under the Australian Constitution, the commonwealth cannot proceed to change this legislation without the
concurrence of each state in Australia or, indeed, by initiating legislation in the commonwealth Parliament at the
request of the state. Under schedule 1 of the Succession to the Crown Bill 2014, the Parliament of Western
Australia is requesting under section 51(xxxviii) of the commonwealth Constitution that the commonwealth also
enacts legislation in substantially the same terms as this bill to give effect to the objects of this bill.
The legislative requirement that the person ascending to hold the Crown of the United Kingdom not be
a Catholic was first legislated by the Act of Settlement 1701. After the split of the Crown of the United Kingdom
and the Catholic Church during the reign of Henry VIII during the reign of the Tudors, it was followed in the
early eighteenth century by the ascension to the throne of King William II and his wife Queen Mary II. They did
not have surviving issue and it was the next in line from the House of Stuarts, who were Catholics. The Act of
Settlement was passed, which ensured that Princess Sophie’s son George, as I recall, would accede to the throne
and that thereafter no Roman Catholic could ascend to the throne of England in the United Kingdom.
Throughout the eighteenth century that rule prevailed, as it still does today. Towards the end of the eighteenth
century some of the successors to William married surreptitiously to either people from the House of Hanover in
Germany or divorcees or Catholics in the United Kingdom and by such marriage were disqualified from holding
or ever becoming the sovereign of the United Kingdom. This presented a problem, however, because even
though the parents could not become the sovereign of the state, where did the children of such a union sit in the
line of succession?
The Royal Marriages Act was passed in 1772, which invalidated any marriage the participants of which had not
received royal assent to the marriage. This rule applied to the first six people in the line of succession. None of
those six people could marry until the sovereign had granted assent to the marriage and the sovereign’s assent
had been recorded in the records of the Privy Council. Thus, by these two pieces of legislation, it was ensured
that no Catholic could accede to the throne. The Act of Settlement was very important in the early eighteenth
century because it brought together under one crown the dominions of England, Ireland and Scotland but ensured
under the Act of Settlement that the sovereign would never be a Catholic. The second enactment, of course,
because of surreptitious marriages by people who were in the line of succession to become the king or queen of
England, ensured that their marriages were rendered null and void and therefore their children regarded at law as
being illegitimate. A number of couples have been affected by this rule--about six or seven, I think-the most
recent of which was a request under the Royal Marriages Act by Prince George William of Hanover, who was
a German citizen descended from King George III and whose father and grandfather were deprived of British
titles under the Titles Depravation Act 1917 because World War I was in full swing at that stage. In 1946,
Prince George William married Princess Sophie of Greece and Denmark, who was about to become a relative of
the British family because her brother, Philip, was at that stage courting the future Queen Elizabeth. George and
Sophie’s request for permission from King George VI received no response due to sensitivity over the fact that a
state of war still existed between the United Kingdom and Germany, and it was held by British officials at the
time that the marriage and its issue would not be legitimate in the United Kingdom, despite being legal in
Germany. Clause 11 of this bill repeals the Royal Marriages Act 1772, and under clause 8(2) the disqualification
of a Roman Catholic succeeding to the office of sovereign of the realm is struck from the statute book.
The opposition supports this legislation because it brings about equality in the line of succession. It also means,
of course, that if the first issue of the Duchess of Cambridge had been a daughter and not the lovely bouncy
George, she would have been in line to the throne in precedence to any younger brother. Under the current law,
if the first issue is a female child, any subsequent male child bumps aside his older sister in the line of
succession; so equality is achieved. There is no challenge to the Crown of England by a competing royal house
in Scotland anymore, and we note that in the recent debate held in the United Kingdom on the referendum over
the possible secession of Scotland from the union, the Scots who were in favour of the yes proposition stressed
that Her Majesty would remain Queen of Scotland. There is no competition now between houses as to who
should be the sovereign, and the need for the rule that was enacted in 1701 in the Act of Settlement no longer
[ASSEMBLY — Wednesday, 22 October 2014]
7757
exists. During that debate about the possible secession of Scotland from the United Kingdom, Her Majesty,
through Her Majesty’s spokesperson, made it abundantly clear that the choice as to whether Scotland remained
within the United Kingdom was a choice for the people and not a matter that Her Majesty would in any way
want to cast an opinion on, one way or another.
I raise this point because although I rise in support of this legislation and I am a great admirer of Her Majesty
and the work she has done now in public service for over 60 years—a remarkable devotion to public service and
stability within the United Kingdom and within the commonwealth—nonetheless, it would be remiss of me to
get to my feet and not to take this opportunity to say that I am a committed republican in Australia. Although
I am a great admirer of Her Majesty and the work that she has done both in the United Kingdom and throughout
the commonwealth, I am a believer that in Australia a republic and a local head of state are inevitable with the
effluxion of time. I note that when we had the debate on the referendum as to whether that change should or
should not come during the term of Mr Howard’s Liberal federal government, Her Majesty, through
spokespersons again on that occasion, indicated very clearly that this was a choice for the people of Australia
and not something that she would want to be heard on. That was very similar to the situation in Canada, which is
constitutional monarchy, and that country’s constitution is no worse off for that. I hardly think that anyone in
Buckingham Palace or close to the royal family would ever read the speech of the shadow Attorney General
made in the Legislative Assembly in that far-flung state of Western Australia. I cannot imagine anyone in the
royal family ever reading this.
Mr R.F. Johnson: I will forward it to her!
Mr J.R. QUIGLEY: Thank you, member for Hillarys. I am sure that if the member for Hillarys, as well
connected as he is in the United Kingdom, got the Hansard of my little speech past the gatekeepers and
somewhere near Her Majesty and if she ever read these comments, she would not dissent from them, because she
has already made her view clear.
Ms M.M. Quirk: If you had a forelock, you could tug it!
Mr J.R. QUIGLEY: I am not a forelock tugger for a number of reasons, but, most of all, I cannot remember
when I ever had a forelock! I probably had one, but it was long ago. My daughter was explaining to one of her
friends the other day that she believes I was born like this and that her daddy never had any hair—or a forelock!
Mr R.F. Johnson: You probably were born like that.
Mr J.R. QUIGLEY: I will put it this way: if the member for Hillarys had seen my late father, he would have no
question as to my parentage. A nice man he was, and even after his passing he would abide this criticism that
I make of him: if he had one failing that I came to know in his nearly 94 years in this world, he left the family
tradition of voting Labor and voted Liberal all of his life. That is something I could not quite fathom, given that
my grandfather, who was the deputy master of the Royal Mint and lived in the mint during the Depression, was
a great campaigner for the late and much-lamented Phil Collier, who rose to the office of Premier of Western
Australia. Anyway, dad’s politics were dad’s politics; he voted Liberal and was also a great supporter of the
Crown. We got to this point through my lack of hair.
Having made my comments, I am sure that if Her Majesty or anyone close to her ever read my comments that
I aspire that one day Australia will be a republic and none the worse for it—even stronger for it—that would not
cause offence to Her Majesty. In that regard, we reflected this morning on a great Western Australian, the
recently deceased and very highly regarded, David Malcolm, who was a Lieutenant-Governor.
Malcolm McCusker, AC, CVO, QC, was a Governor; and Mrs Kerry Sanderson was administered the oath of
office on Monday as our first female Governor, and we all applaud and celebrate that. This jurisdiction has
shown its capacity to throw forward citizens to occupy the office of Governor of Western Australia who are
Western Australians. That office would not be diminished in any way if we were a republic. Similarly, at the
federal level, there have been some splendid Governors-General. I paused there for a moment because one was
perhaps not held in as high regard as the others, but from Sir Zelman Cowen onwards they seemed to be all very
splendid and worthwhile holders of that office. The Queen makes her appointment to the office of
Governor-General or the office of Governor on the recommendation of her ministers at federal or state level, so
our capacity to have an Australian as head of state is self-evident, given the history of Australia and Western
Australia, especially in the last 20 or so years. We are a monarchy; we all pledge fealty to our head of state. We
have only one head of state; we have a Governor and a Governor-General appointed by the Queen. They are
heads of state. I aspire for that to change but whilst the Queen is our head of state, it is important that this
legislation pass expeditiously through this Parliament so that there is sexual equality in terms of the right of
succession so that no antiquated rule can preclude someone from being the head of state on the grounds of
religion. It also seeks to request that the federal Parliament of Australia pass the same sort of legislation, as will
all other states, to clear up this matter and, whilst we have the current constitutional arrangements in place, to at
least bring them up-to-date to the twenty-first century.
7758
[ASSEMBLY — Wednesday, 22 October 2014]
MS M.M. QUIRK (Girrawheen) [3.04 pm]: “Australians all let us rejoice, For we are young and free”—these
are words that we have sung with gusto and enthusiasm on countless occasions at school assemblies and official
events. The Succession to the Crown Bill illustrates that we are not, strictly speaking, totally free. It reminds us
that we are part of a realm. I make no judgement about whether this is a good or bad thing but it is, if you like,
a legal oddity. If this fact escapes due attention, surely Prime Minister Abbott’s extraordinary unilateral decision
earlier this year to restore imperial honours certainly would have come to notice. This raised many eyebrows and
one suspects, even the odd tiara! In some respects, this decision from the former director of Australians for a
Constitutional Monarchy and self-confessed anglophile was hardly a surprise. A little more surprising is that the
decision effectively reverses a system that has been in place since 1975, as we heard yesterday, modified in
1986 and left in place by two previous Liberal Prime Ministers, Fraser and Howard. Prime Minister Abbott made
this decision without taking it to cabinet. As Lenore Taylor notes in an article in The Guardian of 26 March this
year —
… the rationale behind the move is similarly regressive: The prime minister said the new gongs were
needed because the existing ones —
What is the problem? I am quoting.
Dr K.D. Hames interjected.
Ms M.M. QUIRK: Good. It continues —
recognised only “eminent” Australians while the new gongs would recognise “pre-eminent” ones. The
method of selection also takes us backwards. The final decisions for other Order of Australia awards is
made by the Council for the Order of Australia, on purpose, so they are not the gift of politicians. The
new knights and dames of the land will be picked by the prime minister, with the chairman of the
Order of Australia Council merely consulted.
As the article concludes —
And then a quick perusal of the immediate response revealed much more ridicule than outrage.
Commentators were incredulous. A twitter hashtag #knightsanddames filled with knights of the round
table gags, suggestions about who could be knighted and for what type of soaring public service and
references to lute practice and jousting and the imminent return to imperial measurements and pounds
and pence.
So maybe the answer to the question—haven’t we moved past this—might just be that while the prime
Minister hasn’t, most of the rest of us certainly have.
On a less glib note, this bill similarly compels us to travel back in time but for a more worthy purpose. The bill
has Labor’s support because it removes two sources of entrenched discrimination, instead, enshrining provisions
that are consistent with the notions of equality of gender and the right to freedom of religious practice. These are
thoroughly modern and commendable objectives. It leaves, however, the requirement that the monarch himself
or herself cannot be a Catholic. That, however, directly relates to the role of the sovereign as head of the
Church of England.
I intend to move an amendment that I will canvass shortly and that in my view better reflects the mischief of the
legislation. Before I do so, it is necessary to review the recent history of the bill and the source of the laws that
necessitated consent of each part of the realm for a change. As we heard from the member for Butler, on
28 October 2011, the Commonwealths Heads of Government Meeting was held here in Perth at which the heads
of the governments of the 16 realms of the commonwealths, which share Queen Elizabeth II as head of state,
announced that they would introduce legislation in all 16 countries to end the primacy of males over females and
the disqualification of persons married to Catholic spouses in the succession to the Crown.
British Prime Minister, David Cameron, additionally proposed to limit the requirement to obtain the monarch’s
permission to marry to the first six people in line to the throne. The Commonwealth Heads of Government
Meeting agreement was that the legislation be passed in all 16 realms. The agreement provided for the
succession of the Crown to be determined without regard to the sex of those born after 29 October 2011 and it
abolished exclusion from the throne of those who married Roman Catholics. It repealed the Royal Marriages Act
1772 and substituted a requirement that the first six individuals in line to the throne obtain the consent of the
sovereign to marry. Finally, it validated certain marriages that occurred in violation of the Royal Marriages Act.
On 2 December 2012, the British government received final agreement in writing from the other
15 commonwealth realms. On 4 December, the day after the Duchess of Cambridge’s pregnancy was announced,
the British government announced this final agreement, adding that the other realm governments had confirmed
that they would be able to take the necessary measures in their own countries. At a meeting of the Council of
Australian Governments in mid-December, the then Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, and the Premiers of five states
agreed that each state legislature would pass a law permitting the federal Parliament to alter the line of
[ASSEMBLY — Wednesday, 22 October 2014]
7759
succession for the commonwealth and all the states. The state government of Queensland was a recalcitrant but
eventually came on board. It was understood by all that the federal Parliament of the Commonwealth of
Australia would not bring its process of legislating until all the states had passed legislation.
In the meantime, Prince George—a boy—was born on 22 July 2013, which rendered some of these laws moot in
the short term. Ironically, I suspect that the Duchess of Cambridge may well have given birth to her second child
by the time the laws are passed here. Recent media reports suggest that the birth will be in April 2015. All other
states have passed laws; New South Wales in July 2013, Tasmania in September 2013, Victoria in October 2013,
Queensland on 14 May 2013 and South Australia in June of this year. We are the holdout state and it is not clear
why the bill, introduced in February this year, has taken so long to get to this stage. The tardy response to the
CHOGM reforms was noted in question time in the House of Lords earlier this year. On 26 February 2014,
Lord Lexden asked the following question —
To ask Her Majesty’s Government when the Succession to the Crown Act 2013 will be brought into
effect.
To which the Advocate-General for Scotland, Lord Wallace of Tankerness, replied —
My Lords, the Succession to the Crown Act will be commenced when each Commonwealth realm has
taken all steps necessary to give the changes effect in its jurisdiction.
Lord Lexden then continued —
I thank my noble and learned friend, who is the master of the intricacies of this legislation. Can he
reaffirm that it is absolutely essential that this modernising constitutional change is implemented—and
implemented fully—in all 16 realms of which Her Majesty is head of state to ensure that the Crown
descends in exactly the same way in all of them. Does my noble and learned friend have any reason to
anticipate that any of the realms might ultimately default on their obligations under the Perth
agreement?
To which Lord Wallace of Tankerness replied —
My Lords, I entirely agree with my noble friend that it is important that all 16 realms agree. Indeed, the
intention is that when they all have put in place the necessary legislation there will be a simultaneous
order to give effect in each of the realms. I make it clear that all realms that took the view that
legislation is required have passed the requisite legislation, with the exception of Australia. As
I informed your Lordships’ House at Third Reading, the Council of Australian Governments agreed that
respective states would legislate first, requesting that the Commonwealth legislation be brought forward
by the Canberra Government. To date, three states have enacted legislation; two have introduced
legislation; and South Australia has yet to introduce legislation because it is in the middle of an election
campaign.
We now know that all states have, bar Western Australia. More discussion about this continued with Lord Marks
of Henley-on-Thames remarking —
My Lords, with the birth of Prince George some of the urgency has gone out of the need to implement
Section 1 of the Act. Does my noble and learned friend agree that it is still important, and indeed
urgent, to bring Section 2 into force to start to implement the dismantling of the discrimination against
Roman Catholics that has been embedded in our constitution and therefore in those of Her Majesty’s
other realms for well over 300 years?
To which Lord Wallace replied —
My Lords, I entirely agree with my noble friend. He is right to say that the birth of Prince George has
taken away the immediacy of that particular matter, but he is also right to point out that the Act also
allows someone in the line of succession to become sovereign to marry a Roman Catholic. It also
removes the requirement of the heirs of George II to seek Her Majesty’s approval before they can
marry—it will now be confined to first six in line to the throne.
I will quickly read out two other comments. Baroness Hayter of Kentish Town said —
My Lords, it is for exactly those reasons that the Opposition very much welcomed the Bill. If
I understand it, it is only Australia for which we now wait. We just hope that before the Duke and
Duchess of Cambridge get to Australia, it may have done the necessary. Although their first born is a
son, were they to have a brace that come further, the order of succession may still be important for those
subsequent children. Can the noble and learned Lord perhaps use his good endeavours to see this
speedily enacted?
7760
[ASSEMBLY — Wednesday, 22 October 2014]
And Lord Wallace of Tankerness replied —
My Lords, it is fair to say that all the state premiers in Australia have indicated their support for this
measure, and that the Commonwealth Government of Australia stand ready to put in place the
necessary legislation once each of the states has enacted its legislation.
I am sorry to read that out at length but members can see that even the House of Lords is hanging on this
legislation. We are the only thing that is standing in the way of the commonwealth passing the legislation, which
is the last realm to enact the laws. This is ironic given that it was the Perth agreement that resolved to make
amendments to this legislation when we are, in fact, the ones now being dilatory.
I will now get on to the issue of the amendment. In the second reading speech there are three objectives to the
bill. The second one was noted —
Secondly, it removes the rule disqualifying a person from succeeding to the Crown or from being the
monarch due to their marriage to a Roman Catholic. The provision will also apply to marriages made
before the commencement of the provision, which means that persons who had lost their place in the
line of succession will regain it.
My concern lies with the term “Roman Catholic”. First, it is not what the church calls itself. The word
“catholic”, as everyone knows, means universal. The word “Roman” is an adjective referring to the city or sea of
Rome, the first city of an ancient empire and the capital of modern Italy, but to qualify the word “catholic”
which means universal, with any adjective is a contradiction in terms. Second, the term was used
post-Reformation to distinguish Catholics from the adherents to the Church of England, which now officially
refers to itself as Anglican in Australia or as the Church of England in the United Kingdom; hence the need to
make that distinction is no longer necessary.
My next concern with using the term is that historically in Australia the term Roman Catholic harks back to
sectarian times when the expression was used pejoratively. This is not ancient history and certainly previous
generations can recount even large and respectable firms up to the late 1970s having a policy that
“Roman Catholics need not apply”. For balance, I also know that some places likewise became notorious for
having a large number of Catholics working in them, such as the postmaster general’s department. This was
a reaction to the bans that occurred against Catholics. Third and most material in terms of this legislation, the
Act of Settlement of 1701 does not use the term “Roman Catholic”. It reads —… are or shall be reconciled to or shall hold Communion with the See or Church of Rome or shall
profess the Popish Religion or shall marry a Papist shall be subject to such incapacities …
It is arguable that “Roman Catholic” is a narrower disqualification than in the Act of Settlement, which covers
all those churches that are in communion with the Church of Rome. The word “papist” will be deleted by this
Succession to the Crown Bill from the Act of Settlement, but it is not strictly interchangeable with the words
“Roman Catholic”. In other words, in removing the disqualification only on Roman Catholics, members of the
eastern Catholic churches, for example, who are in full communion with the See of Rome will fall within the
definition contained in the original Act of Settlement, but will not be covered by the bill. It is for that reason that
I prefer the term “Catholic” as it is inclusive and more consistent with the Act of Settlement. In this regard, there
is no doubt that the government will argue that the legislation has to be passed in six states, and needs to be
uniform; otherwise, it will put a spanner in the works. However, under the bill, we have to pass laws that are
only substantially similar. That is outlined in point 3 of the preamble and clause 6 of the bill. We need pass laws
only substantially similar to those in the other states and the commonwealth. Removing the term “Roman” will
not cause difficulty in the overall scheme of things.
[Member’s time extended.]
Ms M.M. QUIRK: Other states may have passed legislation with the term “Roman Catholic”, but that is not an
impediment to us passing it in an amended form. What are the eastern Catholic Churches to which I referred?
Some are very small in number; some are very large. There are the Patriarchal Latin Catholic Church with an
estimated membership of more than one million; the Patriarchal Armenian Catholic Church with a membership
of 300 000; the Patriarchal Coptic Catholic Church with a membership of 250 000; the Ethiopian Catholic
Church with a membership of 200 000; the Patriarchal Antiochian Syrian Maronite Catholic Church with
a membership of three million; the Patriarchal Chaldean Catholic Church with 300 000; the Syro–Malabar
Catholic Church with more than three million; the Patriarchal Syrian Catholic Church with about 100 000; the
Syro–Malankara Catholic Church, which has a West Syrian rite, with 400 000; the Patriarchal Melkite
Catholic Church, with 1.3 million; the Italo–Albanian Catholic Church with 60 000; the Ukrainian Catholic
Church with four million; the Ruthenian Catholic Church with half a million; the Hungarian Catholic Church
with 200 000; the Russian Catholic Church, which has only 20 parishes worldwide; the Belarusian Catholic
Church with 100 000; the Albanian Catholic Church with 3 000; the Greek Catholic Church in former
Yugoslavia with 70 000; the Bulgarian Catholic Church with 10 000; the Slovak Catholic Church with a quarter
[ASSEMBLY — Wednesday, 22 October 2014]
7761
of a million; the Byzantine Catholic Church in the United States with 100 000; the Romanian Catholic Church
with 700 000; the Greek Catholic Church in Greece with 2 000; and, finally, the Georgian Catholic Church with
7 000. Before adding up all those numbers, they might seem like obscure churches, but the inclusion of that term
in the legislation will mean some millions of people who practice particular versions of the Catholic faith will be
excluded from being able to marry the monarch. They may not necessarily want to do that, but if this legislation
is about removing discrimination, the use of the word “Roman” will entrench discrimination.
I will no doubt be criticised for nitpicking, but I think I have demonstrated that the use of the term
“Roman Catholic” in the legislation—a term the church does not call itself—will enshrine exclusion and is
consistent with the very mischief of the laws. With a minor amendment, we can demonstrate that discrimination
on the basis of religious practice, be it eastern or western Catholicism, be treated the same. We have waited so
long for this legislation—for three centuries or so; surely we can at least try to get it right.
MRS G.J. GODFREY (Belmont) [3.27 pm]: I rise to speak in support of the Succession to the Crown Bill
2014. It is an important bill because it will remove discrimination on the grounds of religion and gender. The
main object of the bill is to ensure that the sovereign—that is, the King or Queen of the United Kingdom—is the
same person as the sovereign of Australia and of each state of Australia. To remove the problem of
discrimination, the bill has to be passed—indeed, its passage is long overdue. The purpose of the bill is for us,
the state Parliament, to request the commonwealth to make changes to the rules of royal succession. It is not
intended to affect the current relationship between the sovereign and the commonwealth, the sovereign and the
states and the sovereign and the territories. This is an important safeguard to ensure that the current status is
preserved. It is important that section 7(5) of the Australia Act 1986 remains.
I was interested in this process when it was first raised, and I sought to understand the rationale behind it and its
background. It is indeed complex. The Crown plays a key role in the constitutional framework of this state.
Parliament consists of the Legislative Council, the Legislative Assembly and the Queen. This bill will modernise
the rules of royal succession, which are currently discriminatory and out of date in the context of today’s society.
Generally, there will be three main changes to the rules of royal succession. The first will remove the rule of
preference of males over females in the line of royal succession; the second will remove the rule that disqualifies
a person from succeeding the Crown or from being sovereign due to being married to a Roman Catholic; and the
third will repeal the United Kingdom Royal Marriages Act 1772.
The Constitution is the state’s most important act of Parliament. The Constitution is written in complex language
and consists of two separate statutes—the Constitution Act 1889 and the Constitution Acts Amendment Act
1899. All Australian states have since consolidated their Constitutions. Western Australia is the only jurisdiction
to retain this anomaly. In February 2001, the election platform of the newly elected Labor government contained
a commitment to a people’s convention to facilitate constitutional reform. The people’s convention was to
include a pledge to consolidate the state’s Constitution. In October 2001, the people’s convention was
postponed. The founding fathers of Western Australia’s Constitution included a Mr William Edward Marmion,
who is the great grandfather of the member for Nedlands. A number of significant modifications have been made
to the Constitution. For example, the number of Legislative Assembly members has increased from 30 to 57;
property qualifications for voting have been eliminated; women have been granted the right to vote and contest
elections; and, religious leaders are eligible to become members of Parliament.
Three of the most successful British monarchs have been women. Elizabeth gained the Crown only because there
were no males in the Tudor line after Edward VI died in 1553. Queen Victoria ascended to the throne in 1837,
while Queen Elizabeth II was crowned in 1953 because she did not have a brother. She has been a popular and
great Queen, as seen throughout her diamond jubilee celebrations in 2013. Prince Michael of Kent, the grandson
of George V, had to forfeit his place in the line of succession in 1978 when he married an Austrian Catholic, now
Princess Michael of Kent. I tried to research the issue of using “Catholic” versus “Roman Catholic”, and it seems
to be six of one and half a dozen of the other. I am told that the “Roman Catholic” terminology is being used for
the implementation of this legislation. I am surprised that it has taken so long to amend this legislation, and
I support the bill.
MR D.J. KELLY (Bassendean) [3.30 pm]: I was just chatting here in the cheap seats. I thank the
Deputy Speaker for the opportunity to make a contribution to the debate on the Succession to the Crown Bill
2014. Firstly, I will say that I am a Republican. I think the idea that we can modernise the monarchy is
a contradiction in terms. The whole idea of democracy in which people get to vote for their government was the
process that modernised the system of government and moved it away from the idea of a monarchy. The notion
that this bill in some way modernises the monarchy is one that I think is misplaced. We might argue that some of
the suggested changes are desirable because they remove discrimination on the basis of gender or religion, but to
say that this bill modernises the monarchy or brings it into the twenty-first century is a gross overstatement.
I came into the Parliament hoping to deal with the important issues facing Western Australia. I think that the
time spent on a bill such as this would be better spent dealing with homelessness, unemployment, public
transport or domestic violence; the list goes on.
7762
[ASSEMBLY — Wednesday, 22 October 2014]
Mr P. Abetz: You are welcome to sit down.
Mr D.J. KELLY: I have just been encouraged by the member for Southern River to sit down. If the member for
Southern River is not interested in hearing what I say, he can go and get a cup of tea. I intend to have my say on
this bill because the government has put it on the notice paper. My point is that parliamentary time spent
attempting to modernise the monarchy, when the monarchy is the antithesis of democracy, is, in my view,
a misplaced notion.
What is this bill trying to do? Firstly, it removes the rule of preference of males over females in the line of
succession. That is a worthy thing to do, but it is bizarre that in the twenty-first century the monarchy still has
a provision that states that a woman must stand aside from the throne for her male siblings. Most institutions in
our community have long since cast aside the notion that women are inferior to men, and that is a damn good
thing, but the monarchy, but for this bill, still says that male siblings take precedence over female siblings in the
line of succession. If we needed any more stark an example of why the monarchy as an institution is outdated,
this would be it. Did the British monarchy suddenly wake up in 2010, or whenever it was, and decide that
women should have equal rights to the throne? It is appalling that this change was not made much, much earlier,
but it is indicative of the very nature of the monarchy.
Secondly, this bill removes the rule disqualifying a person from succeeding to the Crown or being the monarch
due to their marriage to a Roman Catholic. Reading that sentence makes me think, “Really, you couldn’t be the
monarch of Australia if you married someone of a proscribed religion?” I went to a Catholic school, but I am not
a card-carrying member of the Catholic Church at this time. I am not standing in this chamber to defend the right
of Catholics to be kings or queens because that is my religion; I just find it really offensive that any modern
institution that claims to have a place in a modern society has rules around a person’s religion. It is absolutely
extraordinary. This bill removes the prohibition on people becoming the King or the Queen if they have married
a Catholic, but people have not mentioned in the debate that the rules of succession still mean that a person who
is a Catholic cannot become the King or the Queen. To try to justify that by saying that the Queen is the head of
the Anglican Church and, therefore, that discrimination is acceptable is, I think, extraordinary. People in
Australia come from hundreds of different religions and some do not prescribe to any particular faith. The fact
that our head of state has to effectively come from one particular religion is a notion that should have been
consigned to the dustbin of history long ago. In the twenty-first century, in Australia, our head of state not only
cannot be an Australian, but also has to be of a particular religion. I find that particularly offensive, and no
amount of glossy magazines or pomp and ceremony can disguise the inherent prejudices that are part of the
monarchy.
Thirdly, this bill repeals the United Kingdom’s Royal Marriages Act 1772, which voids the marriage of any
decedent of King George II who fails to obtain the consent of the monarch on the marriage before the marriage.
We are in the twenty-first century and, again, the very notion that people need to get someone’s approval to
marry is just ridiculous. We are told that the UK Royal Marriages Act 1772 will be replaced with a requirement
that only the first six persons in the line of succession must obtain the consent of the monarch before marrying. It
is absolutely laughable that the first six people in line to the throne still have to get the consent of the monarch
before they can marry. In a modern society, marriage is supposed to be a union freely entered into by two people
who love each other. It is an absolute nonsense that a person who is sixth, fifth, fourth or third in line for the
throne has to get the consent of the current monarch before marrying. I take issue with anyone who says that the
Succession to the Crown Bill is about modernising the monarchy. By its very nature, the monarchy is the
opposite of democracy. At best, we are tinkering with what is still a very outdated institution.
As I said, I am a republican. I am a republican for two principal reasons: one is that I think we should have an
Australian as head of state. That is a view shared by many people, if not the majority, in this country. If we are
a country that stands as an independent nation and takes its place within the world, the idea that our head of state
would be someone from another country, and a monarch at that, whom we have no say in the selection of that
person, is such an outdated notion that I believe it is time to change. I very much hope that at some stage in the
not-too-distant future we will get to a position where we have an Australian head of state.
The second reason I am a republican is the monarchy itself is a very powerful symbol that some people in our
society are better than others, not because they have a kinder heart or are more intelligent, and not because they
are more generous of spirit, but simply because of who their father and mother is. The notion that someone is
better than someone else because of their birthright is something that I find unacceptable in a modern society. In
a democracy we are all supposed to be born equal. Hopefully, in a democracy we all have access to equal
opportunities as far as education and health and the like, but to have as part of that the person sitting at the top of
the tree, our most senior person in government, someone who did not get there because they are the smartest,
kindest or the most hardworking, but who are there because of who their parents are, is an outdated and, quite
frankly, offensive notion.
[ASSEMBLY — Wednesday, 22 October 2014]
7763
People will say that we are a constitutional monarchy only; we still have a democratically elected government by
convention. Some say the fact that it is passed down through a system of hereditary line of succession does not
really matter because it does not have an impact on people and it does not affect our lives in Australia as an
egalitarian democracy and the like. I dispute that. Symbols are important, whether it is our flag, our national
anthem, our system of honours, our system of government or whether it is the selection of who is to be our head
of state. All these things are powerful symbols. Symbols in our community play a very special role, whether one
wears the jumper from their football club or it is the faction a student is in at primary school. All these symbols
are important and have an impact on people as they grow up. I keep going back to this: the fact that the most
important person at the top of our government tree is someone who gets there because of their birthright is
simply not acceptable.
For those reasons, although the Labor Party supports the Succession to the Crown Bill 2014, I have grave
misgivings about our continued position as a monarchy. In having this debate, people say, “But the Queen is
a lovely woman; she’s doing a fantastic job. Prince this or Princess that, don’t they work hard?” This is not
a debate about what I personally think of any individual member of the British royal family. I do not pass
judgement on this issue because I think the current Queen is good or bad, or a hardworking member of the royal
family or not; it is a matter of principle. If the Queen ever found the time, I would be very happy to meet her.
She could come to my house and have a cup of tea and I am sure we would get on famously, but that is not the
point. She is a woman who has got where she has arrived at not because she was selected through any
democratic process or any merit selection process, but purely and simply because of who her parents were. To
me, that is fundamentally unacceptable.
[Member’s time extended.]
Mr D.J. KELLY: I was listening on the radio today. I forget the context in which the comment was made but
they were talking about what one does in life. A caller phoned in and said, “Whatever you choose to do in life,
make sure you have fun while you do it.” To illustrate some of the points I have raised, if I may indulge the
house I will quote from scene 3 of Monty Python and the Holy Grail. It is quite lengthy. It is a scene in which
Dennis the peasant, played by Michael Palin, meets King Arthur, played by the late Graham Chapman. Dennis’s
mother, played by Terry Jones, is also in the scene. King Arthur rides up behind Dennis, who is crawling around
in the mud. I quote scene 3 —
ARTHUR: Old woman!
DENNIS: Man!
ARTHUR: Old Man, sorry. What knight live in that castle over there?
DENNIS: I’m 37.
ARTHUR: What?
DENNIS: I’m 37—I’m not old!
ARTHUR: Well, I can’t just call you ‘Man’.
DENNIS: Well, you could say ‘Dennis’.
ARTHUR: Well, I didn’t know you were called ‘Dennis’.
DENNIS: Well, you didn’t bother to find out, did you?
ARTHUR: I did say sorry about the ‘old woman’, but from the behind you looked—
DENNIS: What I object to is you automatically treat me like an inferior!
ARTHUR: Well, I AM king—
DENNIS: Oh king, eh, very nice. An’ how’d you get that, eh? By exploitin’ the workers, by ‘angin’ on
to outdated imperialist dogma which perpetuates the economic an’ social differences in our society! If
there’s ever going to be any progress—
WOMAN: Dennis, there’s some lovely filth down here. Oh how d’you do?
The woman is Dennis’s mother —
ARTHUR: How do you do, good lady. I am Arthur, King of the Britons. Whose castle is that?
WOMAN: King of the who?
ARTHUR: The Britons.
WOMAN: Who are the Britons?
ARTHUR: Well, we all are. We’re all Britons and I am your king.
7764
[ASSEMBLY — Wednesday, 22 October 2014]
WOMAN: I didn’t know we had a king. I thought we were an autonomous collective.
DENNIS: You’re fooling yourself. We’re living in a dictatorship; a self-perpetuating autocracy in
which the working classes—
WOMAN: Oh there you go, bringing class into it again.
DENNIS: That’s what it’s all about, if only people would—
ARTHUR: Please, please, good people. I am in haste. Who lives in that castle?
WOMAN: No-one live there.
ARTHUR: Then who is your lord?
WOMAN: We don’t have a lord.
ARTHUR: What?
DENNIS: I told you. We’re an anarcho-syndicalist commune. We take it in turns to act as a sort of
executive officer for the week.
ARTHUR: Yes.
DENNIS: But all the decisions of that officer have to be ratified at a special biweekly meeting.
ARTHUR: Yes, I see.
DENNIS: By a simple majority in the case of purely internal affairs—
ARTHUR: Be quiet!
DENNIS: —but by a two-thirds majority in the case of more—
ARTHUR: Be quiet! I order you to be quiet!
WOMAN: Order, eh—who does he think he is?
ARTHUR: I am your king!
WOMAN: Well, I didn’t vote for you.
ARTHUR: You don’t vote for kings.
WOMAN: Well, ’ow did you become king then?
Arthur replies, getting all important —
The Lady of the Lake,
[angels sing]
her arm clad in the purest shimmering samite, held aloft Excalibur from the bosom of the water
signifying by Divine Providence that I, Arthur, was to carry Excalibur.
...
That is why I am your king!
DENNIS: Listen—strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of
government. Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical
aquatic ceremony.
ARTHUR: Be quiet!
DENNIS: Well you can’t expect to wield supreme executive power just ’cause some watery tart threw
a sword at you!
ARTHUR: Shut up!
DENNIS: I mean, if I went around sayin’ —
This is to the Premier —
I was an emperor just because some moistened bint had lobbed a scimitar at me they’d put me away!
ARTHUR: Shut up! Will you shut up!
DENNIS: Ah, now we see the violence inherent in the system.
ARTHUR: Shut up!
DENNIS: Oh! Come and see the violence inherent in the system! Help! Help! I’m being repressed!
[ASSEMBLY — Wednesday, 22 October 2014]
7765
ARTHUR: Bloody peasant!
DENNIS: Oh, what a giveaway. Did you hear that? Did you hear that, eh? That’s what I’m on about—
did you see him repressing me, you saw it didn’t you?
The scene ends as King Arthur rides off in disgust. I think it is one of Monty Python’s best bits of writing. I do
not do it justice, but it illustrates how ludicrous some of the notions of the monarchy really are. The whole idea
that the monarch is someone ordained by divine providence to rule is a notion that surely is completely outdated
in the twenty-first century. That is really what the monarchy is all about; when we strip it to its barest bones, the
idea that the monarch is someone chosen by God to rule is just ridiculous. No matter how we dress up the
monarchy and the system around it, it is the complete opposite of the democratic principles that we say we hold
dear in a country such as Australia.
I want my children to grow up in a society in which they not only can aspire to be the head of state or hold the
highest office in the land, if their peers elect them, but also are judged not by who their parents are but by what
sort of person they are: Are they a good person? Are they a kind person? Are they a generous person? Are they
a person who shares? Are they a person who works hard? They are all the values that I think should be front and
centre in our society, whatever position we are electing. The whole notion that our head of state is someone who
is chosen with no regard to any of those things but simply based on someone’s birthright should not be part of
our society. It is not a society in which I want my children to grow up. Until we are a republic in which those
values of merit selection are enshrined at all levels of government, we will not have done the job. Although the
three amendments that this bill makes to the way that the monarch is chosen are improvements, I wish we were
here doing the job properly. It is like putting rubber tyres on a horse and cart; it is still a horse and cart. In the
twenty-first century we should not have institutions based on notions of hereditary lines and rules around them
concerning religious beliefs. None of those things should apply. Although we on this side of the house will
support this bill, I would much prefer we were here doing something more important. In my view, it is not
possible to modernise the monarchy; the whole notion is something that is fundamentally undemocratic.
MR C.J. TALLENTIRE (Gosnells) [3.56 pm]: It is with great difficulty that I rise to speak to the Succession to
the Crown Bill 2014. In some ways this legislation seeks to legitimise the constitutional monarchy arrangements
by making amendments, such as making it so that the firstborn of the current monarch will succeed to the throne
regardless of their gender. It does that by altering the arrangements around the religious affiliation of the spouse
of the monarch or intending monarch and changing the arrangements for who authorises, if not ordains, the right
of marriage for someone who may be up to sixth in line to the throne. Those amendments are perhaps an
improvement, but we still have a gaping hole in the side of our otherwise meritocratic society if we allow the
continuation of a constitutional monarchy. A constitutional monarchy does not enable the fulfilment of
individuals if there is this discrepancy between some who may be entitled to the position of monarch—very few
people are entitled to that position—and the vast majority of us who will never be in consideration or in line for
that position. We are faced with improving something that is very bad, and that is not a pleasant situation for
legislators to be in.
In the short time remaining of this session, I want to say a bit about someone’s religious affiliation not being an
impediment to that person becoming the future monarch. Being someone’s spouse is only one part of it. What
about someone’s religious affiliation and their choice? I gather the situation is complicated by the fact that the
head of the Church of England is notionally the reigning monarch in the United Kingdom. To me, that seems
a very weird conflation of church and state. I am proud that we have a secular society that does its best to keep
matters of church and state separated. However, the situation with the Crown in the United Kingdom is that
a person has to be of a certain religious affiliation to become the monarch.
Debate adjourned, pursuant to standing orders.
STATE BUDGET — IMPACT ON SENIORS AND VULNERABLE PEOPLE
Motion
Resumed from 15 October on the following motion moved by Ms M.M. Quirk —
That this house condemns the Barnett government for the impact its mismanagement of the state budget
is having on seniors and vulnerable people in our community.
MR B.S. WYATT (Victoria Park) [4.01 pm]: Before I was so rudely interrupted at 7.00 pm last Wednesday,
I was in the middle of my persuasive argument to the government about the impact of its budget, as well as,
more broadly, the budget of the Abbott federal government, on seniors and vulnerable people. I remind the house
of the motion moved by the member for Girrawheen —
That this house condemns the Barnett government for the impact its mismanagement of the state budget
is having on seniors and vulnerable people in our community.
[Member’s time extended.]
7766
[ASSEMBLY — Wednesday, 22 October 2014]
Mr B.S. WYATT: The key point I was making last week when we were originally debating this motion was that
the government has no coherent financial plan and has never believed the forward estimates, and the only
consistent assumption it has stuck by with the budget is the magical belief that the revenue of the state will
always increase. Over the first five or six years of the Barnett government, that increasing revenue got the
government out of some fixes. For example, the efficiency dividends have not been successfully met for some
time now, but revenue increasing at a higher than expected rate has covered those holes. We saw a couple of
weeks ago the announcement of another one per cent efficiency dividend on the general government
sector—a situation that is unlikely to be hidden by increasing revenue, because we are all very familiar with
what is going on with the iron ore price, and the impact that will have, not just this financial year but when the
recalibrated iron ore price washes through the forward estimates, and the impact that will have on projected
revenues. Because of the lack of a consistent coherent financial plan since the Barnett government came to
power in 2008, we are now starting to see that play out in a number of places—one being revealed, as the
shadow Minister for Water pointed out, when the government accidentally tabled a strategic plan for the
Water Corporation.
Mr D.J. Kelly: It was a strategic development plan.
Mr B.S. WYATT: The strategic development plan revealed that the government’s debt problems more broadly
across government are now impinging on the efficiency and operation of the Water Corporation. I know that the
government says that even though it keeps on putting in these efficiency dividends—which are lazy, blunt
instruments to try to find savings in government—and even though it is not actually achieving those dividends
anymore, there will be no cuts to front-line services. Everyone in this place knows that that is simply impossible,
because we are all familiar with what the government’s cuts have done to front-line services. We cannot
quarantine front-line services forever, and, ultimately, that is where we are now. That was what was so
interesting in that Water Corporation document that was tabled by mistake. It showed one of those rare examples
in which the government’s financial mismanagement is having a direct impact on the delivery of an essential
service for Western Australia. That is why that was an interesting document that will no doubt get further
discussion in this place.
One of the points I made last week was that, because of this reactive financial management style of the
Barnett government, seniors and vulnerable people in Western Australia are now suffering the blunt end of those
cuts. The cuts are not targeted. I know that the Leader of the House, the member for Kalamunda, who is not here
at the moment, got a very hostile reception on the weekend in Kalamunda from a room full of seniors.
Hon Alannah MacTiernan, the minister, the federal member for Hasluck, Ken Wyatt, and the member for
Girrawheen were all there. He is no doubt very familiar with that hostile reception because speaking with my
seniors shows that there is a very dim view of the government—not just the Barnett government, but also the
Abbott government.
When we debated this motion last Wednesday, I had spoken that morning at the launch of Foodbank’s report into
hunger in Western Australia. I want to quote again for the interest of members—it has been a week since we last
debated this motion—from the press report of the breakfast at which Foodbank launched the report. An article in
The West Australian that day reflected on that report. It stated —
The annual Foodbank hunger report reveals it gave food relief to 51,300 people a month in the State, up
from 43,000 last year.
Agencies reported that an average of 8841 people, almost half of them children, were turned away each
month because of not enough food and resources—down from a monthly average of 16,000 last year.
Foodbank WA chief executive Greg Hebble said demand for food had increased almost 20 per cent in
the last quarter of the past financial year and the “hunger gap” was disturbing.
I found that interesting, Madam Acting Speaker (Ms L.L. Baker), as no doubt you would find interesting, not just
in your current role but also in your previous role. That was the same day that Credit Suisse released a report
saying that Australia is the world’s richest country. Credit Suisse made the point that this was due to significant
increases in property prices in this country and also, because it was an international report, the increase in the
value of the Australian dollar has meant that Australians are wealthy compared with other countries. Of course,
all manner of evil is hidden in statistics, and Greg Hebble and Foodbank highlight some of that evil. Despite our
wealth, significant numbers of people are struggling to eat. I am confident that most, if not all, members have
a relationship with Foodbank. They may not know it, although I would be very surprised if every member of
Parliament did not know Greg Hebble and Foodbank. The fact that Foodbank provides meals to an increasing
number of schools in Western Australia now highlights the point that, even in the richest state in this rich
country, we have some significant issues. I do not think a reactive financial policy, which the government has
had for six years, built on an assumption of ever-increasing revenue, helps that any further.
In my electorate of Victoria Park, where Foodbank is currently based, before moving to its new facilities near the
airport, the Victoria Park Seniors’ Centre, whose committee I chair, has forged a relationship with Manna.
[ASSEMBLY — Wednesday, 22 October 2014]
7767
People may know Bev and John Lowe—a quite extraordinary couple. They established Manna literally out of the
back of their car, initially providing soup to the homeless. I have known Bev and John for a while and, in
a beautiful combination of events, they lost access to their kitchen in the central business district and were
looking for kitchen facilities. By chance, at the Victoria Park Seniors’ Centre, we had made the tough decision
that, because we were no longer providing home and community care services out of our commercial kitchen
due to compliance requirements, we had to close that kitchen.
At the same time, Manna was looking for one, so we now have a wonderful relationship in which Manna cooks
out of our kitchen and provides the members of our social club and seniors and residents with very cheap meals.
What Manna shows, and what Bev and John will confirm, is that the demand for their services is ever increasing.
It is not just the homeless of Western Australia. It concerns me greatly—the member for Albany talked about
this some time ago—that in our electorates we have seniors who are alone in their houses because their partners
have passed away, who do not have revenue sources other than the fixed pension income and who do not have
a social network, or that social network of friends has since departed. We have seniors who are not able to look
after themselves; therefore, the reliance on home and community care funding and services from organisations
such as Foodbank of Western Australia and Manna increases. It is an interesting issue, I dare say, for those in the
mental health space. I do not think the mental health of our seniors is really quite understood at the level that it
perhaps should be. I know from the experiences with the Victoria Park seniors and, indeed, from speaking with
people at the Harold Hawthorne Day Centre that that issue requires more consideration.
I want to make a couple more points about Foodbank specifically, and then I will make some more general
comments in my final few minutes. The growth of Foodbank in Perth and regional Western Australia is, on one
level, impressive. There has been extraordinary growth, largely through the work done by the many volunteers
within Foodbank and the small number of paid staff. I am fortunate to have had a relationship with Greg and
Foodbank in every year since I have been an MP, and each year we collect tinned fish in the lead-up to
Christmas. We aim to get 1 000 tins a year—we get way more than that now—for the simple purpose of
Foodbank distributing Christmas hampers to all agencies. Tinned fish is one thing that Foodbank does not get
because it keeps and it is a very healthy, high-protein meal. However, the demands on Foodbank, as pointed out
by Greg Hebble, show that the hunger gap, which appears to be growing, is not reflective of a wealthy state in
a wealthy country. That is why, when we talk about the state budget impact on seniors and vulnerable people, the
government needs to understand that it cannot simply react and lurch from budget crisis to budget crisis. There
needs to be an element of consistency so that seniors and vulnerable people can plan around the programs and
services that they receive through that budget process. This has been the madness. Today we saw from the
Premier the madness of local government. The local government announcement today was a crazy approach to
public policy. After five years of thrashing around, an extraordinary announcement was made today. It is a fine
example of a government that does not have a consistent policy theme or narrative. The Premier took up the
local government issue because he needed something to do. He got elected for a second term without an agenda
and, despite specifically saying during the 2013 election campaign that there would be no forced amalgamations,
he immediately moved on it. I know that the National Party will vote against the proposed City of Perth act.
They have to so that they can look at themselves in the mirror each morning; otherwise, they will be turning on
their own membership base, and I know they will not do that.
I congratulate the member for Girrawheen, because we sometimes forget that when we come in here and create
a mess of the finances, generally the most vulnerable pay for that mess. To this day, after six years, the Premier
still does not have a consistent financial plan that he can explain to the people of WA. Ultimately, the one
philosophy that he has relied on—ever-increasing revenue—has now come unstuck, which is why I dare say that
the vulnerable people and seniors of Western Australia have some pain to come, because ultimately there will be
more reactive and desperate measures from the Barnett government to help solve its financial problems.
MR D.T. REDMAN (Warren–Blackwood — Minister for Regional Development) [4.14 pm]: I thought
I would take the time to say a few words on this motion and put the perspective of those who live and work in
regional Western Australia. I understand the view of the opposition in raising the issues of those people who are
most vulnerable in our community. Although some of us in privileged positions might get impacted by some
things, those in the most vulnerable positions get hurt the most. However, having said that, the Liberal–National
government has been more than conscious of the challenge faced by the most vulnerable in our community, and
I am sure that other members will talk about the steps that the government has taken to ensure that the impact of
prices, household costs, access to services and a range of things that are important to them are covered.
The people who live in regional Western Australia are the most isolated from services, social infrastructure and
all those things that are important to them that contribute to a community and to their lifestyle and livelihood.
I make the point that since we came to government at the end of 2008, there has been one of the most significant
shifts in resources and significant investments in regional Western Australia in 100 years in Western Australia—
that is, the Liberal–National government’s royalties for regions program. Up until February this year, $4.2 billion
had been spent on 3 500 projects. Those projects are not just infrastructure projects. We often get up in this place
7768
[ASSEMBLY — Wednesday, 22 October 2014]
and other forums and talk about the big-ticket items, the things that are transitional, the things that change the
face of the economy in regional Western Australia and the things that enable investment to happen and therefore
enable strong and vibrant communities to be formed. But it is also just as important to think about those in our
community who are sometimes the most vulnerable. A couple of policy decisions that were taken by the
government have had a very significant impact on those who live and work in regional Western Australia,
particularly country pensioners. When we came to government in 2008, we put in place, on the back of a policy
position going into that election, the Country Age Pension Fuel Card. I remember deliberating on this policy
position around the party table. It came off the back of an announcement at the time by the then Premier of
Western Australia, Hon Alan Carpenter, who basically said that pensioners could access free public transport.
There were obviously some conditions around that, such as travelling on trains at certain times. The point that
we made, and the point that pensioners who live in regional Western Australia were concerned about, is that the
places where they and their families live and call home do not have the same level of public transport service as
there is in the bigger cities.
In an endeavour to get a level of equity for those who live in the isolated areas of the state, we introduced the
notion of a $500 fuel card for country age pensioners to allow them some compensation for the fact that they live
in parts of Western Australia that do not have the same access to services and transport opportunities that they
would have if they lived in the Perth metropolitan area. That fuel card has been rolled out now. In fact, recently,
the government made the decision to increase the value of the fuel card by $50, so it is now worth $550, and the
amount will increase annually in line with the consumer price index. That card has fundamentally changed the
position of country age pensioners. It is interesting to see some of the commentary about it. Members might
make the assumption that people use it to go on a trip, to visit a cousin or to do some of the social activities that
they might not otherwise be able to do, but, interestingly, the anecdotal feedback—I regularly get a lot of letters
and commentary in my electorate office—is that they use it to access fundamental services, such as doctors and
dentists and other services, that they might not otherwise be able to access because they feel some price pressure
in making that decision. People who have come to us have said that this has fundamentally changed their access
to services. They have not talked about visiting friends or people who live in other towns, but about accessing
fundamental services.
We allocated in the forward estimates $125.9 million of royalties for regions funds. In the latest state budget, that
has been committed to continue through to 2017. Now more than 45 000 pensioners across regional
Western Australia have access to the Country Age Pension Fuel Card, which provides vital assistance. That is an
interesting policy. It was sparked by an equity issue that we saw for pensioners who live in regional
Western Australia. This government has taken a significant step to support that group of people in our regional
communities who otherwise would not have the same access to the transport opportunities as a person living in
the metropolitan area. I am sure all members across the chamber support that policy position.
The ACTING SPEAKER (Ms L.L. Baker): Member, may I just interrupt you for a minute? Are you the lead
speaker for the government on this motion?
Mr D.T. REDMAN: I do not think I am, but I am taking the opportunity to speak so that I can reach a meeting
pretty soon.
The ACTING SPEAKER: That is fine, we just need to adjust the allocated time, member.
Mr D.T. REDMAN: Recently in response to a question in this chamber I talked about the benefits of telehealth
and the $36.5 million of royalties for regions funds used to support regional telehealth services. That initiative
came off the back of the fact that we have access to digital communications technology and it is a natural fit to
extend services to access them. However, what is sometimes sold short and is not fully understood is that having
telehealth facilities available in key locations in regional Western Australia means people can access specialist
services and treatment from some of the best hospitals in Western Australia. It is very easy to say, but it is
a service to get specialist treatment to people who live in even the most isolated areas in the state and it has been
supported by this government’s investment in using technology built on a digital communications platform.
I used the example of Toby, I think his name was, in Kununurra, accessing health services through telehealth
facilities. Again, it is another investment in and initiative for using technology to get services into the more
isolated parts of the state to help out, in many cases, people in the community who might otherwise be
challenged trying to travel to the metropolitan area to get access to those services. Seniors, pensioners and all
people throughout the community will have the benefit of that program as it rolls out right across regional
Western Australia.
In addition, royalties for regions funding is providing $30.8 million over four years to expand the patient assisted
travel scheme. Again, because of where people live, it is a challenge to get access to those services. In some
cases, those services are for ongoing treatment. Treatment might not be just one-off, but ongoing treatment for
which people need to make regular trips to see a specialist in a bigger centre or, indeed, in the Perth metropolitan
area to access what we might consider to be fundamental health services. Eligible participants can access some
[ASSEMBLY — Wednesday, 22 October 2014]
7769
compensation for the costs of travelling and the cost of accommodation. Again, through the state government’s
royalties for regions program we have been able to support a greater level of assistance than was provided
previously to those vulnerable people in our communities.
Although today’s discussion is not directly about aged care, we talk about seniors and pensioners being the more
vulnerable members of our community. In regional Western Australia aged care is proving to be quite
a challenge. Indeed, I am sitting next to the member for Central Wheatbelt, whose electorate is in the area of the
Wheatbelt Development Commission, and she has been involved in rolling an economic and social investment
infrastructure blueprint for that area. Aged care and how we manage and provide the services needed to support
the aged people in our community are common themes in the area covered by the Wheatbelt Development
Commission in particular, but also the areas covered by the other commissions. We know we have an ageing
population that needs access to services, accommodation and facilities that allow people to live safely,
comfortably and independently. These things will allow them to live many more years in their communities than
they might have otherwise done, because in some cases they might have needed to shift to a bigger regional
centre to access those services. We have made fairly significant investments in aged-care facilities in places such
as Geraldton, Northam, Morawa, Albany, Tambellup, Capel and Kellerberrin. I am sure that as we create a set of
investment priorities from the blueprints that have been developed, there will be more initiatives to support really
good work in the delivery of aged-care services in regional Western Australia. The state government will work
out its operating arena, hopefully partnered with the private sector, to develop a strategy that will allow people to
remain in their communities a lot longer than they otherwise would, to feel safe in those communities and to be
able to afford to access key services in those communities. We know there are challenges for regional
Western Australia and they will not go away on the back of some of the things I have talked about this afternoon,
but I think this Liberal–National government has made some fantastic investments in regional Western Australia.
In my view, those investments have made a fundamental difference to and brought about a fundamental shift in
how we support the vulnerable people living in the more isolated parts of regional Western Australia.
MR P.B. WATSON (Albany) [4.27 pm]: It gives me great pleasure to rise today to speak on this motion.
Unlike the previous member, I will talk about this motion, which addresses the cost of living for seniors and
pensioners. It is interesting that the Leader of the National Party has been talking about what it is doing in
regional areas for seniors. Originally, 25 per cent of royalties were to go to the regions, but this same Leader of
the National Party has rolled over, put his legs in the air and had his tummy tickled, and now it is only
12.5 per cent. I was one of the few members on our side of the house to support royalties for regions. I always
thought that when members came into Parliament and made laws, they were enacted. Obviously, the “Emperor”
and all his little crew are just changing things to suit themselves. When I first got into Parliament in 2001, then
Premier Hon Geoff Gallop said that we had to be so careful that we did not end up with working poor. We are
talking about seniors and vulnerable people today, and in my electorate there are husbands and wives who both
work and yet they cannot pay their bills. They put their children into day care because they have to work, but the
cost of day care is astronomical. I know that some parents are lucky because the grandparents can look after the
children, but the grandparents of a lot of people in regional areas live in the city and the parents have to put their
children in day care every day. A large amount of the money they make goes into paying for day care. What plan
does the government have to fix the mess it has made? There are seniors in my electorate who cannot afford to
turn on their lights at night and some cannot pay their bills. The Premier says people can access the hardship
utility grant scheme to pay their bills, but a lot of people are too proud to do that. Wives have come to my
electorate office asking me to talk to their husbands because the wife wants to access HUGS but the husband
does not want to because he is too embarrassed. I visit their houses at night, sit down and see grown men burst
into tears because they cannot look after their families. It is through no fault of their own. They work really hard
and their wife is working, but they cannot afford to pay their bills. Their kids cannot afford to play sport and they
do not go to the movies or have treats, and this is supposed to be the lucky country. The power and water bills
have gone up, and we are spending money on projects like Elizabeth Quay—when the Premier retires, he will
say what a great project it was. How many seniors in my electorate will stay in a really big hotel at
Elizabeth Quay with all the fancy stuff?
I listened to what people said about Gough Whitlam yesterday. I said in Parliament that when Gough Whitlam
wanted to get things done, he did not worry about the next election. He wanted to get things done for the people
on the street, the people who really mattered, the battlers, at whatever cost, and he was not worried about the
next election. All this Premier worries about is making a legacy for himself. He is taking away all the money.
We have been told that by the time all the interest has been paid for the football stadium, it will amount to
$3 billion. I am the shadow Minister for Sport and Recreation and I love sport, but not many people in Albany—
I stand here representing the people of Albany—will go to the football stadium. All these big projects brought up
by the Premier and the National Party will not help people in my electorate.
I have people sleeping in cars. I remember when I first got into this job, someone would ring me up and say,
“Look, I’m sleeping in a car. Can you get me a house with Homeswest?” I would get onto Homeswest and
within a week or less that person would have a house, but I cannot say that these people are sleeping in houses
7770
[ASSEMBLY — Wednesday, 22 October 2014]
now. We have people sleeping in vulnerable situations. I know some young people from our Indigenous
community who stay with families in houses that are not safe. People wonder why these young Noongar kids
walk around the streets at night. It is because no houses are available for them, and if they do not sleep on the
street, they have to sleep in a vulnerable situation.
I do not know whether some members go to the supermarket, but I go there about once or twice a week and I see
my seniors there. They wander around the aisles looking at the price of things that we would not even consider to
be a luxury. They are unable to afford it so they put it back on the shelf. I know a lot of people are eating food
that is not good for them. They buy the cheapest stuff there is to eat because they cannot afford things like steaks
or chops or the expensive foods or anything like that. They get the cheapest thing they can find.
As I said, people are sleeping in cars. Families are sleeping in cars. When the forts in Albany were being
refurbished for our Anzac celebrations, four or five people I know were sleeping at the fort and had to find
alternative slum accommodation under a bridge or something like that. Our seniors do not feel safe in their
community.
When the Labor Party was in government, seniors could get money to install proper wire security doors or
lighting around their house; they cannot get that anymore. These people cannot afford to do it by themselves.
A lot of seniors in Albany now have a dog, which is really good when I am out doorknocking. In an area like
Lockyer or Spencer Park, 80 per cent of people have dogs. The dogs are out the front of the house because
people do not want anyone to get into the front yard or the backyard because they do not feel safe in their own
community, which is a shame. These people have worked hard all their lives and now they lock their doors as
soon as it gets dark. They do not put on their power and they use their blankets instead to keep warm. Just
recently, I doorknocked a lady who had to open about three locks on her door just to let me in, and she had
a little peephole. She said she does not go out at night, and when she goes out during the day, she leaves the dog
in the house because that is the only way she can feel safe.
The hardship utility grant scheme is good, but people have to go through much rigmarole to apply. They have to
get a councillor and someone to help them organise what they have to do, and a lot of people cannot be bothered
doing it—they have neither the time nor the inclination to do it. These people are losing hope. We have heard
about Elizabeth Quay and the football stadium and all the things that are happening in Perth. The Premier keeps
telling us that we have a new hospital in Albany, and that is done, but what is the plan of the government, the
Nationals and the Liberals for the unfortunate people in Perth? What has it done? It has whacked up their power
and water prices. It has done everything it can to make it tough for them just so the big part of the town looks
good and the Premier can be re-elected.
Let me talk about the royalties for regions program. It was a tremendous concept. I fully applaud the previous
Leader of the National Party, Brendon Grylls. I thought he was great for the regional areas and tremendous for
people in the country. He was not afraid of Colin Barnett; he stood up to him and I really admired him. I do not
know the circumstances behind why he is not the leader anymore, but I am disappointed with the person who has
taken his place. Instead of getting 25 per cent of royalties for regions funding, we are now down to 12.5 per cent,
which is $3 billion less over the forward estimates—money that could have gone into the regional areas to look
after our seniors, our roads and the patient assisted travel scheme.
The Leader of the National Party said that the PAT scheme is great, but I asked him when was the last time that
the price of accommodation in Perth went up. We know that it now costs over $300 a night. I remember when
we first got into government, I could organise accommodation for people in Perth for 80 bucks a night or
something like that. It now costs $300 a night and the PAT scheme has not moved with it. In the regional areas,
we do not want our seniors to have to travel to Perth by bus. I do not know whether members have travelled by
bus from Albany to Perth, but it takes about 6.5 to seven hours. Imagine if a person has something wrong with
them and they cannot sit down for very long—they have to stand up and walk around—or they have a crook hip
or are just not feeling well, and they have to get on a bus from Albany to Perth. They then have to get from the
bus stop to where they are staying in Peth, and then they have to get from where they are staying to the hospital,
and then back to the bus. All this royalties for regions money is just sitting there, holding up the bottom line for
the government. It is an absolute disgrace. If it had not come in in the first place, I would not have worried.
However, the fact is that the royalties for regions money was for the regions and now it sits in Colin Barnett’s
bank account to make him look good for the next Standard and Poor’s rating.
I will now talk about access to programs for health for our seniors. I do a lot of doorknocking in Albany and
these people are just sitting at home. They do not go anywhere and they have nothing to look forward to. We put
on a seniors concert every year. We started off with 69 people attending, and now, in our fifteenth year, we have
500 attend. On the day we advertise the tickets, it is like a rock concert. The tickets are free and the people line
up outside my office, right up Aberdeen Street and around the corner—it looks like a fire sale is on. For 70 to
80 per cent of these people, it is the only thing that they go out to for the whole year. In this day and age, to have
that many people without something to look forward to is an absolute disgrace. These people have paid taxes all
[ASSEMBLY — Wednesday, 22 October 2014]
7771
their lives. They have worked hard. They have built this country up. But this government is just ignoring them.
The government is doing everything it can to build all these things in Perth and make these big announcements,
but it is not looking after the most vulnerable people in our society—our seniors.
It is not only our seniors who are vulnerable in our society. There are a large number of families in my electorate
who, over two or three generations, have never worked, so they do not know what it is like to look forward to
something. They do not know what it is like to save money. They just live from fortnight to fortnight or week to
week, and from cheque to cheque. People just say that they should go out and get a job. There are not many jobs
in my electorate for these people. What worries me is that we are forgetting the most vulnerable and most
important people in our community.
We have talked about Foodbank. Foodbank is really good. I do not know what the situation is like in other
electorates, but Foodbank in Albany is run off its feet. I congratulate Hon Col Holt, because he has helped to get
a lot of food for Foodbank in Albany. He does that every year. The member for Victoria Park does that, too,
every year, with his tuna collections for Foodbank in Victoria Park. We can always tell when the member for
Victoria Park has done that, because there is a tuna smell all around the chamber for a week!
My main concern is that we do not have a plan for what is happening. We have little programs here and there,
but we need to have a program to look after the most vulnerable. We have a couple in Albany who run a food
kitchen. This guy used to run around in his van to the spots where people are in need. It is remiss of me not to
remember his name. He had trouble with the licensing of his van, and he now has a small restaurant, and on two
days a week he opens his restaurant to provide free food for people in Albany so that they can get a decent meal.
The weekend after next, we will have 60 000 people in Albany, supposedly, and we will have all the pomp and
ceremony and it will be a very momentous occasion. But, at the same time, in a society that is supposed to be
going pretty well at the moment, we will have people sleeping in cars. We will have young people sleeping in
vulnerable situations in houses because there is nowhere else for them to go. I have doorknocked in areas such as
Spencer Park and Lockyer at 10 o’clock or 11 o’clock in the morning, and people will say, “Come in, Watto”,
and I will go into their house and see people sleeping in the lounge room or the kitchen or the hallway. I cannot
believe that can happen in a society such as ours. We are supposed to be a society that looks after its own. I do
not know where we went wrong. I do not know where we have lost our way. Everyone in my electorate is
a special person, but I cannot give to those people the basic things that I have and that my family has, because of
the way things are at the moment. I have been coming home from a function late at night and I have seen young
kids whom I know really well through sport, and I have stopped a couple of them in the street and have given
them a lift home. Often when I ask them what they are doing there, they will say that it is a lot safer on the street
than it is at home. That is a blight on our society, and it really concerns me. I do not know with the answer is.
This is not just in the Noongar community, either. These are the wadjelas—the white boys and girls—in our
community, and they are out late at night, vulnerable.
I know it is a hard job for any government but, as I have said, I am extremely disappointed about royalties for
regions. I congratulate the National Party on the Country Age Pension Fuel Card. It has done a lot of good,
especially for my seniors, because they cannot afford the fuel prices. The minister said that they can use it to go
to doctor’s appointments and things like that. But often they have to use it to drive to Perth for specialist
appointments, because we do not have the facilities in Albany for our seniors. Their petrol card runs out pretty
quickly if they need to go to Perth for medical appointments. We need to have specialists in Albany so that our
seniors do not need to go to Perth and be away from their families. We have young people in Albany who need
cancer treatment in Perth. We had a young family come in recently whose child had leukaemia. They had to pack
up and go to Perth. They did not have any family in Perth, so they had to find accommodation. They had to
spend 11 weeks in Perth. The patient assisted travel scheme pays for a certain amount, but, bang, it is soon all
gone. We need those facilities in Albany for not only our children and families, but also our seniors. Albany is an
ageing community. We have a lot of people in our community who are ageing quickly and are not very well.
Therefore, we need to get specialists in Albany. We also need to have a plan for our seniors and the less
fortunate. As parliamentarians, that is our job. Our job is to look after our constituents. It should not be just us
and them on the other side. We need to get together as a parliamentary community and find a way of dealing
with this stain on our society, whereby seniors cannot afford to go out, they cannot afford to turn on their lights
at night during summer, and they have to lock their doors in summer when it is really hot so that they will be
safe.
I am calling on both sides of the Parliament to find a way in which we can look after the more vulnerable people
in our community.
The ACTING SPEAKER: I give the call to the member for Mindarie—sorry; Butler.
MR J.R. QUIGLEY (Butler) [4.47 pm]: We have had a couple of goes. I like the previous go best, actually,
Madam Acting Speaker—member for Quigley. But, as I commented earlier in this chamber today, that carries
7772
[ASSEMBLY — Wednesday, 22 October 2014]
the horrible notion that the former member is deceased and they have named the seat after him. I do not want to
qualify for that yet. I want to kick on for a while.
I rise to support the motion that this chamber condemns the Barnett government for the impact its
mismanagement of the state budget is having on seniors and vulnerable people in our community. Much has
been said this afternoon about royalties for regions, and much has been said about the expenditure on large
capital items in the CBD, or close to the CBD—mainly Burswood stadium and Elizabeth Quay—and the
government’s commitment to spend $2.4 billion on seven kilometres of rail track under the Swan River and
under Perth Airport.
The member for Albany has complained to the chamber this afternoon that under the new leadership of the
National Party, royalties for regions has slumped from 25 per cent of royalties to 12.5 per cent of royalties.
In fact, the royalties for regions fund was never spent in the way in which it was first announced—that is, that it
would be 25 per cent new money for the regions. It was not intended to be money that was already going to be
spent in the regions for, in the proper course of events, the building of hospitals and police stations and other
necessary infrastructure. When royalties for regions was first announced, it was going to be 25 per cent on top of
that. However, the government was dishonest about that. Although the government goes around trumpeting
royalties for regions, the capital and recurrent expenditure that has been normal throughout Western Australia’s
history is being badged as royalties for regions. I am sure that if we got KPMG or Deloitte, or someone, in to do
an audit of royalties for regions, it would find not much more is being spent on the normal capital rounds but it
now comes out of royalties for regions. Who are the losers in all of this? I will not be political here and say
Labor-held seats, but the losers in this are the constituents in the member for Jarrahdale’s electorate. Just as in
Butler, the ring of outer metropolitan suburbs are bearing the brunt of this. Whilst there is a concentration of
money being spent in the regions that is being badged as royalties for regions and whilst there is a further
concentration of large infrastructure projects being built in the CBD that is being badged as “We’re getting the
job done”—I should have said member for Darling Range, I am sorry; I said Jarrahdale —
Mr A.J. Simpson: It used to be Serpentine–Jarrahdale.
Mr J.R. QUIGLEY: We will call it the member for Simpson’s electorate after the member has croaked! With
the response of the local government authorities, that might be sooner than later, but I hope not.
The struggle is occurring in this ring of seats in the outer metropolitan area. The member for Darling Range is
nodding his assent from the other side of the chamber, and he is a cabinet minister. There is the big spend in the
CBD and there is the concentration of delivering infrastructure into the regions. People from Mandurah,
Darling Range, Swan Hills, West Swan, Wanneroo and Butler in the north also suffer. This is non-political,
member for Swan Hills. It is a fact that the areas in the outer rim of the metropolitan area have not attracted the
government’s attention. These areas have been labouring for these past eight years since royalties for regions
was announced because there has been this twin concentration on spending money in the regions and badging it
royalties for regions and, by that swift political strategy, securing most of the country seats with some notable
exceptions. Even if it was 50 per cent royalties for regions and a tonne of TNT, the government cannot bomb the
member for Albany out of his seat, nor the member for Collie–Preston, because they are so well regarded. With
so many other country seats, the government is ensconced because of that badging. In the metropolitan area, it
appeals to people close in, as I said, with these big infrastructure projects.
Look at the seat of Butler, for example. Two Rocks is 60-odd kilometres from Perth. There is sparse public
transport between Two Rocks and Perth. When the member for Albany talks about the distance that people
suffering from cancer or from kidney failure travel to come to Perth for dialysis or to the cancer centre—perhaps
at the Bendat Family Comprehensive Cancer Centre at St John of God Subiaco Hospital or the cancer centre that
I go to run by that wonderful man, Dr David Joske, at the WA Cancer Centre located at Queen Elizabeth II
Medical Centre—the patient assisted travel scheme helps a little. For people in Perth who live close to the CBD,
as was my experience when I had to continually come in for chemo—you feel as crook as a dog having to travel
home again after it—it is bearable, but in the outer metropolitan area, people have to do this not on public
transport but by private transport. It is hard for them. The round trip by taxi from Two Rocks to the cancer centre
costs just over $200. What pensioner can afford that? The only way they can get there is through volunteers. The
community of Two Rocks raised funds for a community bus. It runs a cancer transport service. Those pensioners
are doing it hard.
As the member for Warren–Blackwood said, there is recourse to the Country Age Pension Fuel Card. If elderly
people in Two Rocks lived four or five kilometres further north, just over the line, they would get the fuel card
and would find it a bit easier to get to Perth for their hospital appointments. I know that would be the same for
the member for Darling Range. To get from places such as Jarrahdale twice a week for cancer treatment would
cost pensioners a fortune, but they do not have a fuel card. Similarly, in Two Rocks —
Mr F.A. Alban: It is the same in my electorate, member. I just said to the member for Darling Range that we
will have to talk about that one. We have a similar issue.
[ASSEMBLY — Wednesday, 22 October 2014]
7773
Mr J.R. QUIGLEY: I take that interjection; I hope Hansard records it. The member for Swan Hills says that he
has a similar issue in his electorate to what I am saying about Butler. On this occasion, he is not disagreeing with
me; nor is the Liberal minister, the member for Darling Range, disagreeing with me.
What has fallen through the crack is the outer rim of the metropolitan area. That is where the problem is. These
areas are being populated quite fast. I received a call the other day from a reporter who wanted to interview
me—perhaps she will and perhaps she will not—about the redistribution out my way and how this will affect
me. I said that where the lines are on the map will not affect me at all because the complaint will be the same:
Where are the services up here? It does not matter whether at the next state election a Liberal wins the seat or
I retain the seat; the people coming to the electorate office will have the same complaint to whichever side
represents that area: What are we doing about public transport out here? What are we doing to ease the cost of
living in the outer metropolitan area? We know what we are doing in the country; we know what we are doing in
the CBD.
Getting back to this possible interview concerning electoral redistribution, there was a redistribution just before
the last state election and we were all brought down to an average of about 23 500 to 24 000 people.
Mr A.J. Simpson: How many do you have now, member?
Mr J.R. QUIGLEY: Just under 33 000.
Mr A.J. Simpson: I have 31 000.
Mr J.R. QUIGLEY: The electorate of Darling Range is a booming electorate, like mine. We share many of the
same issues.
Mr A.J. Simpson: The same fear—what part are we going to lose?
Mr J.R. QUIGLEY: I do not have the same fear about what part we are going to lose. That is all beyond our
control; it is in the hands of the independent umpire. Wherever those lines are drawn in these outer metropolitan
seats, what they will demand of their local member is what they can do to ease the cost-of-living burden in an
outer metropolitan area. What will they do about public transport to this area? Here is the big one: what will they
do about mental health services? I do not know what the member for Swan Hills or the member for
Darling Range feel about this, but I can tell members that in Butler, to try to get into the Clarkson mental health
service, one just about has to know the director of mental health in Western Australia and queue-jump! The
service is swamped with people suffering from mental health issues. In our public discourse, mental health has
been brought to the fore as an issue by both parliamentarians and other significant people in our community.
I think this started with Hon Andrew Robb, who put his hand up when he was in opposition and said that he was
suffering from depression and needed to stand aside for a while. He has come back as a cabinet minister and is
the federal Minister for Trade and Investment. When people started doing this, other people in the community
thought, “Hang on, if he can come out and put his hand up and say he needs help, I can say that I need help, too.”
People regularly come into my office very distressed that they cannot get their children or wife into mental
health services. There are no more vulnerable people in the community than those afflicted with mental health
issues.
I do not want to speak ill of a former member, and I will not, but when we look at the talents of the former
member for Vasse, we can see that it is a tragedy that he had to put up his hand and say that he was stricken with
mental health issues. However, as he said, he has the financial resources to seek private assistance. Most of my
constituents in Butler do not have those sorts of resources. The Liberal member for Swan Hills is nodding in
agreement; a lot of people in the electorate of Swan Hills who have anxiety or depression problems—before
moving along the scale of mental illness to bipolar disorder and perhaps psychosis and, ultimately, more serious
and chronic mental illnesses—cannot access services because it has not been on the government’s agenda to look
after the most vulnerable.
I regard those afflicted with mental illness of any sort as the most vulnerable in the community. They cannot
speak up for themselves; they cannot mount a cogent argument. They have been pushed out into the community
because the beds are not available in live-in accommodation. A friend of mine to whom I have referred before,
a very eminent psychiatrist, Dr Oleh Kay, and his lovely wife, Dr Marjorie, a clinical psychologist, told me that
the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Psychiatrists recently convened a crisis meeting because it is
unable to find beds anywhere in Perth for its severe cases that must be dealt with on an urgent basis. The only
way that the hospitals can find a bed for these people with chronic mental illnesses in a crisis situation is by
kicking out someone else who should also be hospitalised.
[Member’s time extended.]
Mr J.R. QUIGLEY: Three weeks ago there was a meeting of the college of psychiatrists to bring pressure to
bear on this government to do something about providing facilities for these people. When I say that they are the
most vulnerable people in our community, others may say, “Well, what about the poor Indigenous?” We all
7774
[ASSEMBLY — Wednesday, 22 October 2014]
know that the incidence of mental health issues in our Indigenous population is enormous. It comes from not
only foetal alcohol spectrum disorder, FASD, but also myriad other sources. Being from a totally dysfunctional
family, being poor, being on the streets, engaging in substance or alcohol abuse and all those things precipitate
mental illness. I suggest that because it is not a sexy issue, the government is not giving it the attention it
deserves. Building a 20-bed mental health facility out my way would not get the sort of good publicity that
a huge front page with an artist’s impression of the football stadium at night, gloriously glowing under lights,
would get the government. Because it is not being done, the vulnerable are really, really suffering.
I now have many grandparents in my electorate; we call them the “Grandparents of the North”. They met this
morning in my electorate office. These elderly people have had to step into the breach and take over the
parenting of their grandchildren because of social problems that their own children have run into—quite often
drugs, such as methamphetamine. I am sure I am not the only member with instances of people such as this
visiting their electorate office. A great swathe of grandparents in Perth, during the evening of their life, when
they should be perhaps sitting back and taking the odd caravan trip or trying to live as best they can on their
fixed income, are now having to dip into that fixed income to support their grandchildren. I had a function at my
electorate office last Thursday night, and I met a couple whom I will leave nameless, but they were helping to
raise their grandson. He lived principally with his dad. His mother was a total methamphetamine addict. He
shared time with the grandparents because of the father’s work obligations. When he lived with his mother, he
was never required to go to school; school optional for him, as it is in a lot of poor families. When he eventually
got to the age of about 12 or 13 years and could work out what was going on, he could then grasp that his mother
was a drug addict who could not cope and he went to live with his dad and his grandparents; he alternated
between them. He then really wanted to succeed at school. He was at Wanneroo Secondary College and his
grandparents asked the school whether it could provide some tutoring or special assistance to improve his
literacy so that he could get to at least year 12. The department’s response was that the department’s budget
meant it could not supply any tutoring. The department’s best suggestion was to find a computer at the Clarkson
public library and find an online tuition program. I then wrote to the director of education and said, “I want
a letter signed by you personally giving your reasons why you will not assist this child.” In the letter I asked
whether he could put his reasons in writing quite fulsomely because I wanted to lodge an appeal at the
State Administrative Tribunal against the decision-maker as soon as I received it. He relented, and the student
was given some tutoring. I am very pleased to say that this young man has completed year 10 and is now in an
apprenticeship with an air-conditioning firm in Joondalup, as I was told at a function last week. The battle in
these outer metropolitan suburbs to get that basic support for a family and a vulnerable child was incredible.
Given the amount of money that the state spends on other things, I would have thought that supporting a born
and bred West Aussie child who had found himself in dire circumstances through no fault of his own would have
been a priority.
I am not looking accusingly at the member for Armadale, but I know that this chamber took a lot of time
deliberating the Mental Health Bill. I forget how many days of debate took place, but it was a big bill and it took
lots of days. I did not contribute a lot during the consideration in detail; that was ably handled by the member for
Armadale. But I want to repeat now what I said in my speech on the third reading of that bill, because it is
apposite to what we are discussing this evening. I said that it does not matter how long we debate the
Mental Health Bill in this chamber, and it does not matter how big and how detailed the bill is, it will count for
nought if the services are not delivered into the community. If the beds are not provided in the community and
the mental health professionals are not provided to the community, we can all stand in this chamber to speak on
the Mental Health Bill but it will count for zip, because the people in the outer metropolitan area, where there are
no big tertiary hospitals, will not be able to access mental health services. Out my way, it is extremely hard. As
I have said, I regard those with mental infirmity to be the most vulnerable people in the community. I am waiting
to hear the announcements of beds throughout the metropolitan area that will service the mentally infirm in
accordance with the aspirations that we all had during debate on the Mental Health Bill.
We can find the money to commit $2.4 billion out of the blue to build a tunnel under the Swan River and under
the northernmost runway of the airport to deliver a rail line to the airport and Kelmscott.
Dr A.D. Buti: It is Forrestfield.
Mr J.R. QUIGLEY: It is Forrestfield, of course. When I am looking at those suburbs from as far away as
Butler, it is a bit of a blur. I am sorry; no insult is intended to those people, but even when I add binoculars to my
glasses out there at Butler, I cannot see that far. I know that a lot of people in this chamber are not familiar with
the geography of the seat of Butler, because it is all so new.
The government can commit $2.4 billion to these two stations, but cannot find the money to protect the most
vulnerable people in our community—those labouring under the dreadful burden of mental infirmity. The
Premier can stack what he would regard as iconic infrastructure project on top of iconic infrastructure project to
build a legacy for himself—he will soon be forgotten—at the expense of the most vulnerable people in our
community. That is where we are heading as a state; it is just intolerable.
[ASSEMBLY — Wednesday, 22 October 2014]
7775
I was debating this yesterday with the Premier. When the Barnett government was first elected, it commissioned
an independent committee to look at rail infrastructure needs for the next 20 years. The first priority that
committee identified was to finish the rail line to Yanchep to unlock the jobs and give people public transport to
the hospitals, like other people have in Perth. The second priority was to build the Metro Area Express light rail.
The last recommendation was to build a rail line to the airport by 2031. However, with the stroke of the pen and
without consulting anybody at all—I would say without even consultation with the Minister for Transport at the
time—on the eve of the Liberal Party’s state conference, the Premier, wanting to announce an iconic
infrastructure project again, turned this committee’s recommendations and findings on their head. When I say
“committee”, I am not referring to a committee of this Parliament. It was chaired by the chairman of the
Western Australian Planning Commission, and the Public Transport Authority was involved. With the stroke of
a pen, the Premier turned that on its head and said that he will spend $2.4 billion running this seven kilometres of
track under the river and under the Perth Airport, while the rest of the people in the outer metropolitan area, such
as the Liberal-held seat of Swan Hills and the constituents in the minister’s seat of Darling Range, can all whistle
for their supper. If they want mental health services, tough luck. The $300 million that could have built enough
beds to accommodate the mentally infirm in hospitals has just been blown—not on a railway to the
Perth Airport, but on the blowout in cost between the announcement and when Parliament resumed, which went
from $1.9 billion to $2.2 billion overnight.
Dr A.D. Buti: That was only an estimation.
Mr J.R. QUIGLEY: The member is quite right; that was only an estimation.
MR A.J. SIMPSON (Darling Range — Minister for Seniors and Volunteering) [5.17 pm]: As the
Minister for Seniors and Volunteering, it is important that I contribute to this debate. I thank members for their
contribution to the debate on this motion. I would like to place a couple of things on the record on behalf the
government about seniors in Western Australia particularly. This is an interesting time for seniors in Western
Australia, when their numbers are growing at such a fast rate. Just to place it on the record, between 2006 and
2011, the population of Western Australia grew by 14 per cent. During the same period, the population over the
age of 50 grew by 17 per cent, and the population of those over 60 grew by 21 per cent. There is a seven per cent
difference between the increase in the state’s population and the increase in the number of people turning 60.
This is affecting governments all around Australia, including the federal government. The federal government
has announced an increase in the pension age. Every two years, the eligibility age for the pension will be
increased by six months, so that by 2035 the pension age will be 70. The reason behind that is the sheer number
of baby boomers retiring.
An interesting aspect of this is that seniors are remaining healthier, more independent and more socially
connected, and have a far more valuable life than they ever did in history. Seniors now are so much more aware
of early intervention on health issues and so forth, and so much more in tune with what it takes to live healthier
lives. This leads me to an area that involves me as Minister for Communities, as well as Minister for
Local Government. The state government has provided over $50 000 to local governments to develop an
age-friendly community network. As we plan for growth—the member for Butler talked about the massive
growth in his electorate—we are making sure that we take into consideration how we develop our housing to
make liveable, walkable communities. We see subdivisions coming up in these new areas, and quite commonly
on the main road into the subdivision will see cottage lots that overlook what is called a standard pocket park.
The entry to those houses is at the back and they are very skinny, but I think the Acting Speaker knows what
I am talking about. There are more designs to allow seniors to live independently; they are the eyes and ears on
the street because they are home during the day and see the traffic moving. We are looking at how we can best
design age-friendly communities.
Ms M.M. Quirk: You would have heard your colleague the Minister for Transport in the last couple of days talk
about the new pedestrian crossings. They are about facilitating a faster crossing. How is the introduction of those
crossings age friendly?
Mr A.J. SIMPSON: They are designed to let people know how long they have to cross the road. It gives
a countdown and when it turns red, there are so many seconds left. It is about knowing how much time people
have to cross. The member mentioned seniors, the elderly and frail people.
Ms M.M. Quirk: They are being given 1.2 metres per second to cross at the crossing. How is that age friendly?
Mr A.J. SIMPSON: There is more time once the timer turns red, but at least people will have a timer to work
out how much time they have to cross the road. This is a trial that the Minister for Transport is running to try to
work out how pedestrians can best interact with car traffic. This is feedback that the member and I can give the
Minister for Transport about seniors. The important part is to make sure that when people cross the road, they do
it as safely as they can, and that there is good interaction between pedestrians and cars on the road. That is the
idea behind it.
7776
[ASSEMBLY — Wednesday, 22 October 2014]
We have done a fair bit of work in a number of areas. I spoke last week about Carers WA because it was
Carers Week. We had a great celebration of carers. Some 310 000 carers in Western Australia care for a loved
one, whether that be a child, a sibling or a partner. They have taken on the responsibility to look after their loved
one. It is very important. Again, the government has committed over $450 000 to ensure that there is awareness
of Alzheimer’s disease in Western Australia. At the start of September, the member for Albany and I opened
Hawthorn House. It is fantastic. It is great to see a community come together in a great partnership between
Lotterywest, the shire and a raft of community groups. Hawthorn House is a beautiful house that has been
designed especially for people with Alzheimer’s; they can go to Hawthorn House in the early stages and allow
their partner to have a bit of respite. The house has an orchard, a flower garden and an outdoor centre. It even has
a respite unit to allow people to stay for a few days.
Mr P.B. Watson interjected.
Mr A.J. SIMPSON: As the member for Albany has pointed out, Hawthorn House is fantastic. More
importantly, Alzheimer’s Australia is getting right behind it and is promoting it. It is a little sad that this is
becoming more and more a reality of life. My father-in-law, Mike, is in that situation with his wife, Val.
Another commitment we made at the last election was to establish an elder abuse hotline. I am pleased to say
that we launched that hotline this year. Advocare has taken on that role. I have talked about elder abuse on many
occasions in this house. It is not the abuse that we think about. In fact, the number of offences against seniors has
decreased in the last 10 years as a result of modern technology. With the use of screen doors and security
lighting, the number of assaults against seniors has reduced. However, we are seeing that most assaults are being
committed from within the family unit; for example, children are asking their parents to sign their house away to
borrow money. This type of abuse is happening more often in an ageing community. It is something that the
government has recognised and, along with Advocare, a hotline has been set up on 1300 724 679. It is basically
a one-stop shop. It has been running for just under a year. It was launched at the elder abuse conference. We
have a conference each year on elder abuse, which shows how prominent it is in our community. We know that
the people who are being abused probably will not ring; it will be a friend who has noticed that someone has not
turned up or something is not quite right. People might want to seek financial advice or advice on making a will,
on dealing with the Public Trustee or on police matters. The hotline is a bit of a one-stop shop. It was an election
commitment of the government. I am glad that we could deliver on that to help. Seniors, carers or anyone who
thinks they are being abused can ring that number.
In 2008 we introduced a security rebate of $200 to help seniors live at home comfortably. We offered $200 for
security doors and lighting and screen windows. In the first five years, 46 000 people applied for that money and
we have spent just over $9.9 million through that scheme. The Seniors Ministerial Advisory Council guides me
on how best to support seniors in the community. People who live in a gated community, a retirement village or
a nursing home do not need security doors or lighting because they already have that protection, so this year we
kicked off with $200 towards a personal device that can be hung around the neck. They cost about $290, so with
this rebate it will cost $90. We have had a good take-up of that, so we will work through that process. The
interesting part is that the government has committed to making sure that people feel safe in their communities
and in their houses and is working with them to find the best way to support them in the community.
The member for Butler spoke about a grandparent who was looking after their grandchild. Again, this year the
government made another commitment to grandcarers. Western Australia is the only state in Australia that
acknowledges grandcarers in our community. We have set up a scheme under which a grandcarer can receive
$400 a year for the first child and $250 for every other child under the age of 16 years. It is not a great deal of
money, but when we launched it in January, the grandparents at the launch commented that it will help to buy
shoes and backpacks for the start of school. They are all the costs of raising grandchildren. More importantly, we
have acknowledged grandcarers in our community. Someone has had to take on the responsibility of looking
after their grandchildren at a time in their life when they should be hitching up their caravan, travelling around
Australia and enjoying retirement. They have gone back to the period when they raised their own kids. It is great
to recognise them. I have had a lot of support from the federal government. Senator Dean Smith came over to
WA with a committee and met with representatives of Wanslea Family Services, which is running the program.
Dr A.D. Buti: Did the government make a submission to that Senate inquiry?
Mr A.J. SIMPSON: Yes, we did. Senator Dean Smith is very keen to get involved in that process and is very
supportive of it. The federal government has come to the table. The money that we give grandcarers will not
impact on their pension. We are now working on the tax liability issue for them so that they do not lose any
money. It is a good commitment from the government. Again, it was an election commitment. Western Australia
is the only state in Australia that recognises grandcarers in our community.
That leads me to Seniors Week, which runs from 9 to 16 November. It is a great opportunity to celebrate seniors
in our community. We will have an awards ceremony to acknowledge the senior of the year. It is hard to get
seniors to nominate. Although they do a fantastic job in our community, they are very proud people and do not
[ASSEMBLY — Wednesday, 22 October 2014]
7777
think they are doing anything unusual, but they are doing some fantastic work. We will have the opportunity to
recognise a number of community groups and individual seniors and also the senior of the year. During the week
from 9 to 16 November, there will be Have a Go Day and some different events all over the state. Money is also
available for local communities to put on their own morning tea or function. I am sure that I will be able to
update the house next month on the events and the senior of the year. Again, I acknowledge the important role
that seniors play in our community.
That leads me to my next portfolio of volunteering. A huge number of seniors volunteer; they do some fantastic
work. The member for Albany touched on Foodbank of Western Australia. He is right; it has done a fantastic job
in trying to support our community. It is run by a lot of volunteers. We have worked with Foodbank in Perth to
build the new facility at Perth Airport in your electorate, Mr Acting Speaker (Mr P. Abetz), with Lotterywest and
state government funding. It is a larger facility. Members would have seen the report last week about not enough
food being distributed. The interesting part for Foodbank is trying to distribute the food to areas. That is one of
its sheer struggles. We must keep in mind that there are 247 remote Aboriginal communities throughout WA, so
trying to get food to those communities is a logistical nightmare. Fantastic work has been happening.
We acknowledge volunteering organisations. Some people have volunteered for 50 years with one organisation.
There is a special badge for people who have done that. Members would be surprised at the number of groups
that have people with those badges. Again, we are also looking to maybe bring that back a bit to also
acknowledge 10 and 20 years of service as well. We are working on trying to acknowledge volunteers in the
community and the great work they do.
There is also the WA Seniors Card and I make the point that funding from the state government has not changed
at all, even though I know there have been a lot of conversations about the federal government’s seniors rebate.
More importantly, I hope all members have had the opportunity to get the Seniors Card Discount Directory into
their electorate offices so that they have something to give to seniors. If members have had the opportunity to
read through it, they would have seen that about 500 businesses have come on board to give discounts at a raft of
places. It is a fantastic directory and it is a great way for seniors to keep —
Mr P.B. Watson: I have been doing my own for 10 years.
Mr A.J. SIMPSON: Good to hear, member.
Mr P.B. Watson interjected.
Mr A.J. SIMPSON: I am glad to hear that the member is on the front foot with the seniors in his electorate.
Using the discount directory is very, very important.
The important part is that a senior can save about $1 000 a year from discounts alone. Keep in mind that there
are 360 000 Seniors Card holders in WA. Another area we have some issues with is that to be eligible for a
WA Seniors Card, two things are needed: firstly, a birth certificate proving the person is over the age of 60; and,
secondly, a signed form stating that the person works fewer than 25 hours a week, annualised. With those two
things a person is entitled to a WA Seniors Card. The important part is that if a person is still working full-time,
they cannot access a Seniors Card. The reality is that a lot of people over 60 years of age still work. I have talked
to one of the seniors’ groups in my electorate about the fact that a part-time teacher over 60 years of age could
access this card, and actually does, and get the full benefits of the card while working their part-time job. Some
work needs to be done on working out the eligibility criteria for the card and how we can best support people.
The other area we are also looking at is that the WA Seniors Card holder gets a 25 per cent discount on their
shire rates, a 25 per cent discount on their water rates, free public transport, a discount on driver’s licence fees,
free Museum entry, free entry to the Zoo, the safety and security rebate and a raft of other things. It is interesting
that if a person also holds a commonwealth Pensioner Concession Card or Health Care Card, they get
a 50 per cent discount on their shire and water rates.
People might remember that in the May budget the federal government tore up the national partnership funding
agreement and took away $25 million that went towards helping the vulnerable in our community. Through my
department’s advice and by consulting with the sector, we made a decision about the cost-of-living rebate. I still
believe that some work needs to be done on the cost-of-living rebate. We are the only state in Australia that gives
a cash payment to Seniors Card holders. The rebate covers cost-of-living expenses, but I think we also need to
target people on a fixed-income pension. When I meet the seniors’ groups in my electorate, I always talk with
them about the categories of seniors in our community. A self-funded retiree who has done well and has not cost
the state or federal government any money and does not get a pension is fully entitled to a Seniors Card and can
get those 25 per cent discounts, free public transport and all the other things. They probably do not need the cash
payment. At the other end of the scale are seniors who, for whatever reason, are doing it hard—perhaps
a widower living on a pension. The cost-of-living rebate should be targeted at that end of the scale. That is
something we need to address, along with the Seniors Card, to make sure it is helping the people who need it the
most because they are most impacted on, especially with the cash payments. It is something we need to look at,
as the number of seniors is growing at such a phenomenal rate.
7778
[ASSEMBLY — Wednesday, 22 October 2014]
As we all know, through the cost-of-living rebate process we took the opportunity to look at how we could
possibly save that $25 million and we came up with a saving of $20 million. I sat around the boardroom table in
my office and talked to groups such as National Seniors Australia, the Council on the Ageing, the Association of
Independent Retirees and Retirees WA—about six groups represent seniors in Western Australia—and all of
them made it very clear that we should not cut the concessions because the concessions are what they want most.
That is important and we need to look at how we can support those seniors. Imagine a 25 per cent discount on
local government rates for a $4 000 rate notice for a person living in Nedlands versus that of someone living in
Kalamunda —
Mr D.A. Templeman: They’ll need a concession after what you’re doing to local governments.
Mr A.J. SIMPSON: I will actually put downward pressure on rates. I will make sure they —
Several members interjected.
The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr N.W. Morton): Thank you, members.
Mr A.J. SIMPSON: We all know that rates will not go down, but in the last couple of years we have seen the
increases in rate fees go up quite considerably, running into seven per cent, eight per cent or nine per cent
increases at a time. We have to work on a way —
Dr A.D. Buti: Do you reckon it is going to decrease in our shire?
Mr A.J. SIMPSON: We will have a bigger budget in our shire.
Dr A.D. Buti: It will be a bigger area.
Mr A.J. SIMPSON: Yes, it will be a bigger area, but our rate base will now get up to around 100 000-odd
people—so probably about 90 000.
Dr A.D. Buti interjected.
Mr A.J. SIMPSON: Yes, the service will be delivered but we could possibly accept not having these huge
increases if we were a bit more rational about where the increases needed to be.
Mr D.A. Templeman: What do you reckon the increase will be under the new arrangement?
Mr A.J. SIMPSON: I do not set the rates for local government. The budget is adopted by the council, and as an
ex-councillor, the member for Mandurah knows very well that the council sets the budget and the councillors
vote on the rate increase.
Mr D.A. Templeman: I wasn’t a high-rating councillor.
Mr A.J. SIMPSON: Nor was I, member.
The ACTING SPEAKER: Members, enough interjections. Minister, if I could just take you back to
commenting as you were, I think, about seniors. Please make your comments through the Chair.
Mr A.J. SIMPSON: Thank you, Mr Acting Speaker. I got distracted and I do apologise.
As I was saying, the WA Seniors Card is the most generous card in Western Australia. Concessions on bus fares,
ferry fares, rail fares, Museum fares, national park fares, spectacles and fishing licences are all available by the
possession of a WA Seniors Card.
I will just finish on the fact that as the Minister for Community Services, I know that there are some 300-odd
community groups in that sector. They work with people with disabilities, youth and seniors and provide family
centres and child care. There is a raft of community groups out there that all deliver their services to their
community. This government has been very, very committed to that with a $600 million increase, people may
remember, just over three and a half to four years ago, to make sure that that sector had the money to deliver
those services and to keep up with rising costs affecting non-profit organisations. We also need to look at other
things. As the Minister for Community Services, I travel around the state and get to meet many of these
community groups. I am always interested in how we can best deliver those services and, more to the point, how
we can best support community groups through that process. A lot more work is to be done in this area. I still see
a huge number of non-profit organisations in high-rental properties, and we need to look at trying to support
them. It would be really good if we could find a better way. Maybe through this reform process there will be an
opportunity to look at some of the buildings housing local governments and whether there is some space in
which we can put some of our community groups. It would be a great connection for the local government to
provide some community facilities and charge some of those organisations cheaper rent so that they can deliver
more services to their communities. That is something we could look at in the future. It is really, really important
to acknowledge the great work that those organisations are doing. One of the best parts of my portfolio is visiting
those community groups to see what they are doing. There is some exciting stuff happening and it is really great
to see that in the community. To see organisations delivering some really good community services to people is
what I call the nice part of my portfolio.
[ASSEMBLY — Wednesday, 22 October 2014]
7779
Mr D.A. Templeman: The minister would be aware that the Association of Independent Retirees and other
retiree groups also raise consistently in their budget submissions the issue of the cost of downsizing. I think they
are always requesting governments to consider stamp duty concessions or a sliding scale for stamp duty
concessions. Have you got anything to say on that from a policy perspective?
Mr A.J. SIMPSON: I have done a fair bit of work on this. I met with National Seniors Australia and it raised
that issue with me. I said that all the groups raise this issue with me, but I said I would really like
National Seniors Australia to know that it understands as much as I do. If I were sitting around a table during the
budget process and I took money out of the budget—let us just use the stamp duty example—I would need to
know how much it was and I would have to provide a budget for it. I asked National Seniors Australia about this
when this issue was raised with me. I said it had raised this with me a couple of times and I asked what the true
cost would be. The interesting part is that I have heard a couple of ideas about putting a discount on the stamp
duty to the median house price, for instance. That could possibly be done and it would enable seniors living in
a large house—empty-nesters—to downsize to an independent living arrangement. It is clear that I would have to
go back to the Treasurer if I had an idea about trying to do that. It is something I would like to do a bit more
work on. I know that if there is to be a saving, the Treasurer will be right next to me asking, “If I am going to
lose this money, how much will it be and where I will get the other money from?” That is the issue, but I would
really like to flush it out a bit more. I would also be interested in exactly what downsizing means, because
sometimes people could spend more going into a retirement village—it could cost more to do that than what the
house is worth. Is that actually downsizing or does it go on the value or the size of the house? I have asked for
work to be done on that because I have heard that question asked a number of times, but I have no facts or
figures to look into. At one of the last meetings I had in my office with Michael O’Neill, the issue was raised and
I asked him about what work was being done on it. That organisation has quite a large research unit based in
Canberra that can look at some ideas and the costing involved, and I would like to look into that. Supporting
seniors in our community is a key area. It is a growing demographic. We are all politicians in this chamber and
we all want to be re-elected, and this growing demographic of seniors will be a very big voting demographic —
Mr D.A. Templeman: It is very big in my area.
Mr A.J. SIMPSON: Yes, it is, member for Mandurah. Part of the process of supporting seniors in our
community will always be a movable feast on how we can deliver different programs to attract them. One of the
clear things I mention to my seniors is that as this demographic becomes a large voting demographic,
governments around Australia will definitely lean towards finding ways to do that. We need to fish out those
types of options and, as we move to the next election, work out the sorts of programs we can offer. Consider
where we are today: we have brought in the grandcarers support scheme and the elder abuse helpline. All of
those election commitments were fully funded and are working very well.
Mr D.A. Templeman: What is the progress of the review on the Seniors Card and the associated issue of how
we provide existing services and make it fair et cetera? What is the current status of the review?
Mr A.J. SIMPSON: We are still looking into that, member. At the moment I am doing some modelling with
Treasury to work out, more importantly, where the growth will be. In this year’s budget, I fully allocated
$405 million from the state that fully funds all the rebates for the WA Seniors Card. I am making it very clear to
the Treasurer that the graph is going up at quite a considerable rate. Over the last four or five years it has grown
by six per cent, and it is growing quite strongly. We need to make sure that we are supporting the seniors in our
community. We must provide for them for what they need to do, and part of that process is to make sure that the
Seniors Card keeps up with our ever-changing demographic of seniors, who are far more active and out and
about more, and what best suits them. As part of that process, we will now look into how we can best support
them and what areas we have to adjust to make sure we keep in line with the changes.
Mr D.A. Templeman: Does the minister have a time line?
Mr A.J. SIMPSON: Not really. No, I have not got a time frame at all. I am just working through that at the
moment to —
Mr D.A. Templeman: A bit like local government reform.
Mr A.J. SIMPSON: I have a time frame for that. I thank members for their interjections and their comments.
Again, this government is very supportive of seniors and vulnerable people in our community. It is a fantastic
sector to represent and I am very pleased that we can support them.
MS L.L. BAKER (Maylands) [5.42 pm]: This motion is about not only seniors, but also other vulnerable
people in our community. I will cover some points on both these categories. There is no doubt that seniors are
some of the most vulnerable people in our community, but there are others, some of whom were mentioned this
afternoon. People suffering from mental illness were mentioned and we have heard children mentioned. I would
like to pick up on few other issues too, but before I do that I will talk about the seniors’ forum that ran in my
electorate about two weeks ago and was attended by the federal shadow minister for families and payments,
7780
[ASSEMBLY — Wednesday, 22 October 2014]
Jenny Macklin; the federal member for Perth, Alannah MacTiernan; and me. The invitations were sent out in
quite a short time frame and one never knows with short time frames whether a lot of or just a few people will
come. This is clearly an issue that has raised some angst in the seniors’ community because over 60 people
turned up to the Recreation, Information, Socialising and Entertainment facility in Maylands. It is fair to say that
I thought that perhaps they were all WA Labor supporters, but indeed they were not; a mix of political
affiliations was present. However, they all shared one unifying feature, which is that they are thoroughly fed up
with what the Barnett government is bringing down on their heads. The straw that broke the camel’s back was
the election of a conservative federal government. They have been in the unfortunate position of watching
a number of cuts rolled out with what they feel is very little power to influence what is now coming down on
them. I will run through some of the things that they were concerned about so that members are clear about how
the seniors in all our electorates must be feeling.
A number of people asked me why their vehicle registration had suddenly become almost an insurmountable bill
this year. They said they did not even know that there would be any changes until they opened their registration
documentation and saw the new amount on the bottom of the bill. Some of their car registration bills increased
by as much as 75 per cent because the state government’s private vehicle concession was abolished. That is
shameful, not just because the government did that, but also because it did not warn pensioners in any fashion so
that they could prepare themselves to foot the extra 75 per cent on the car registration bill when it arrived. The
figures across Western Australia show that under the Liberal government, car licence fees for seniors may be
upped an additional 212 per cent, which is on top of the removal of the rebate. Vehicle licensing registration has
increased by three per cent and the compulsory third-party insurance has increased by 3.7 per cent. That is just
the start of the reason why seniors are concerned and feeling incredible pain from the Liberal government’s price
hikes.
I am sure that it is not just electorates on this side of the house that are registering pain over these cuts; I am sure
that members opposite are feeling additional pressure after the federal government started to make more cuts to
seniors’ concessions. Since 2008, under this government, household bills have gone up at least $2 500 per
household per annum when the increase in electricity and water prices is factored in with other household items.
An increase of $2 500 a year might not sound like very much for people who work in this house, but I can tell
members that that is a huge amount of the annual income, or what they are living on, for the seniors who were
represented at RISE in Maylands two weeks ago.
In addition, several people at the meeting said that the security rebate is no longer applicable to them. Of course,
we all know what happened with that. If the government wants to paint itself as not cutting something, it just
fiddles with the terms of something or changes the criteria by which it is measured and it thinks it can get away
with blue murder. Unfortunately, the rules on the seniors’ safety and security rebate now make it almost
impossible for seniors to claim that rebate. The Barnett government has attempted to try to dress it up and say
that the seniors’ safety and security rebate is still in place and that nothing has changed, but it has fundamentally
changed. For a person to be eligible to claim this rebate, they must have not only claimed it previously, but also
been burgled sometime since January 2014.
Mr P. Papalia interjected.
Ms L.L. BAKER: That is exactly right. One might wonder whether it is almost worthwhile getting someone to
pop in and open the front door, pull back the flyscreen, sneak down the corridor and remove a toilet roll or
something, and then report it. It seems to me that it is not a fair impost on seniors to change the eligibility
criteria. Do members know how many people have received the rebate as a result of the changes? It is only four.
In the period between February and June of last year, before the rules were changed, 2 709 seniors received that
rebate. I will say it again: four people have received that rebate. The rebate is supposed to give people up to
$200 to help pay for home security items such as alarms, security doors, window screens and deadlocks. I do not
know what people are saying about this rebate in members’ various electorates, but when I hold seniors’ forums,
street corner meetings and community meetings around antisocial behaviour and whatever, one of the things that
I have found really productive and helpful is to ask people whether they are eligible for the seniors’ security
rebate; and, if they are, tell them how they can apply for it. However, when I hold those forums now, I have to
tell seniors that unless they have been the victim of a burglary, and unless they have applied for the rebate
previously, they will not get it. That is not good enough. It does not sound very good to just state that this
security rebate has been changed so significantly. I suppose it is some sort of attempt to claw back funds. I do
not know. But it sounds like penny pinching to me.
The other issue that was raised is that the cost-of-living rebate has been slashed or cut in half. The Premier made
that announcement after he refused to stand up to the Prime Minister, Tony Abbott, and fight for a fairer deal for
Western Australians. Our Premier is always very quick to speak on behalf of Western Australia and Western
Australians in federal forums. Indeed, he pats himself on the back regularly, in front of anyone who stands still
long enough to listen, about his ability to push Western Australia’s interests. Whether it be the goods and
services tax revenue or any other kind of income source for Western Australia, the Premier is always very quick
[ASSEMBLY — Wednesday, 22 October 2014]
7781
to say he is looking after us. Therefore, it completely befuddles me that the Premier refused to stand up for our
Western Australian pensioners and seniors when Mr Abbott talked about halving the rebate. This will impact on
306 000 Western Australians. It will cause a lot of pain in the community. That is certainly the feedback that
I get from a lot of people who know about this change and are commenting on it. The rebate will be cut from
$245 to $123 for couples, and from $163 to $82 for singles. I understand that the Barnett government is currently
reviewing a range of other concessions and discounts. So we will be watching that page to see what else will be
cut.
I am looking at my colleague who sits next to the Leader of the National Party. Earlier today, the Leader of the
National Party spoke very positively about royalties for regions and about the great cushion that has given to
regional people. Although I agree that it has given regional people a great cushion, I also agree with what the
member for Albany has said—that a lot of that money previously came from consolidated revenue. So there has
been a bit of tricky footwork around the shifting of costings. I think regional pensioners may be in a better
position than our metropolitan pensioners after the next round of tough cuts comes down, because the royalties
for regions program has locked in some positive benefits for regional seniors that metropolitan seniors are not
likely to be able to continue to benefit from.
I will run through some of the other changes. I have mentioned the abolition of the private vehicle concession on
car registrations. I have mentioned that household bills have gone up by $2 500 a year. I have mentioned the
changes to the security rebate, which effectively will lock out more than 90 per cent of seniors. Coming from the
federal government, there is a possibility that pensions will be indexed to the consumer price index from
September 2017. Again, that change will cost every pensioner significantly. I do not think people understand yet
what that will do to pensions. It will have a dramatic impact.
Do not forget that also coming from the federal government will be the additional pressure of the $7 tax for
people to see a general practitioner. The cost of a prescription under the pharmaceutical benefits scheme will
also increase by $5. Unfortunately, one of the things that happens when people get a bit older is that they are
more likely to have to go to a doctor. It will also cost people an extra $7 if their GP orders an X-ray or a scan or
if they need to see a specialist. People have no control over that; if they want to have their health effectively
managed, they will go and get those tests. But it will cost people an extra $7 every time that happens. As I have
said, people cannot influence that decision. That is their GP’s decision. Obviously, if people do not want that
treatment, they can say “No, I’m not going to have a CAT scan”, or “No, I’m not going to have an X-ray”, but
I do not think that augers well for the health of people in our community. Every time we put pressure on things
like health care, we immediately get a reaction from people who are on low incomes and struggling financially.
My experience of that reaction is that people will not go to a doctor themselves if they are ill; they will take their
children to a doctor, because that is where they think their commitment and responsibility lies, but they will put
off any medical attention that they might need. When it comes to things like dentistry, forget it; people cannot
afford that if these kinds of additional imposts are coming into their budget.
I have talked about the abolition of funding for states to deliver concessions to pensioners and Seniors Card
holders. That is the big hit that Mr Abbott has taken out of our state. That has made a $24.5 million hole in our
state budget that the Premier is refusing to fill. It is okay for the Premier to spend money on his pet issues, but
when it comes to filling the hole for pensioners that the Liberal federal government has made in the state budget,
the Premier is not prepared to do that.
I have talked a bit about what happened up-front for me at that seniors’ forum. I should say I was quite shocked,
firstly, at how much the people who came to that forum knew about what was happening. But maybe that is
a reflection of the fact that when we put out the information and invite people to come along, they will look into
it. I was also shocked at how angry these people are, and at how willing they are to look for a way in which they
can take action against this government.
I now want to talk specifically about the Western Australian Council of Social Service pre-budget submission for
the 2016–17 budget, which was released late last week. For the first time, WACOSS has put a contextual
statement at the front of its pre-budget submission. I want to draw from some of the elements in that WACOSS
submission and relate this directly to the vulnerable in our community. The Western Australian Council of Social
Service starts off by making the general comment that as last year’s budget was framed as a little pain for
everyone, what we are looking at now is a great deal more pain—but it is not for everyone. The impact of budget
cuts is never felt by everyone in the community.
[Member’s time extended.]
Ms L.L. BAKER: There is always a more direct effect on low income households and the most vulnerable. It
has a disproportionate impact as rising household fees and charges push up essential living costs for the most
vulnerable in our community. The council goes on to say that it has —
… experienced cumulative impact from an ongoing … series of reforms to the funding and regulatory
environments of community services at the State and Federal levels.
7782
[ASSEMBLY — Wednesday, 22 October 2014]
The council goes into specific detail about the potential impact of federal funding reforms for the community
sector. Members will understand that when I talk about the community sector I am talking specifically about
sector agencies that interact with the most vulnerable people in our community. It is a direct issue in relation to
this motion. The WACOSS submission goes on to say —
There is a risk they may impact disproportionately on small to medium sized organisations …
We have been talking about this since 2008, since the Premier started to make changes to the way the
government funded not-for-profit organisations. There will always be a rationalisation impact because of these
changes. It is the government’s preference to fund larger non-government organisations so that it has less
paperwork and less auditing to do. The government can fund large amounts to the Anglicares or the UnitingCare
Wests of the world and ask them to on-fund small agencies. That sounds like a great saving for government, but
it is in fact, potentially, an extremely dangerous way to manage government work within the sector. If it truly
wants to capitalise on the relationship that the human services sector has with the community, with volunteers
and its proximity to real, local issues, it is effectively cutting out the agencies that have the capacity to deliver on
this.
WACOSS’s pre-budget submission goes on to state —
Our primary concern is that service procurement reforms should result in the delivery of more efficient,
effective and sustained outcomes for service users, independent of who is delivering those services.
Irrespective of whether or not we support the idea that fewer service contracts delivered by larger
providers may be more efficient or easier for government to manage …
It is very clear that WACOSS is worried. WACOSS represents 400-odd charities and agencies in the
not-for-profit sector. In speaking for groups that I have heard mentioned today, Foodbank and the like, this peak
body is worried; its members are telling WACOSS that they are worried.
The other issue that seems to be a persistent problem for the sector is how to develop and sustain a workforce
that can undertake the kind of person-centred planning needed within, for instance, aged-care services or the
National Disability Insurance Scheme. We understand the transition to an individualised funding model
potentially has some very good outcomes and should be a good way forward; the problem is in seeking
a workforce that has the skills to deliver these services. We do not have a ready workforce. We need a point of
entry or a workforce training strategy that allows a low-level entry point so that people who have a natural
aptitude for caring professions, or want to develop their career in that direction, can transition from a low entry
into a more skilled level. There needs to be clever and urgent planning around that workforce training strategy.
WACOSS states that the WA public and community services sectors —
… face the prospect of significant challenges to both the viability of our service system and the budget
bottom-line as a result of state budget pressures.
That was a direct quote from the “WACOSS Pre-Budget Submission For the WA State Budget 2015–16” titled
“The difference we can make”. The sector is clearly hurting. We rely on these people to help our most vulnerable
people. It goes on —
These pressures include diminishing and uncertain revenue, growing state debt and a high level of
investment in infrastructure, as well as the impacts of a … federal reform agenda that is likely to reduce
service funding and shift more responsibility back to the state.
This is the catch: why should we mind that the Prime Minister is cutting funding to the sector? It is pretty
obvious that if we want the vulnerable in our community to be supported with effective service delivery,
somebody has to fill the gap; somebody has to stump up the money. If we do not, the lines at Foodbank will
grow. Emergency relief providers—whether it is at the back of a church, a home or a domestic violence shelter,
whoever is delivering that—will increasingly be unable to cope.
Having spoken about the most vulnerable people and the agencies that serve them, I want to pick up on
a separate, but allied, issue. Mahatma Gandhi was quoted as saying that society is judged by how it treats its
animals; and others have said by how it treats its most vulnerable people. There is also a comment about how we
treat the sentient creatures that we share this planet with. I want to talk about the RSPCA. I am sure many
members would have read a story in the weekend paper about the incredible increase in cruelty cases that the
RSPCA is dealing with. I feel that this is directly relevant to vulnerability in our community because families
under pressure may become dysfunctional. Whether it be income pressure, relationship pressure, household
pressure, financial pressure or whatever pressure, families under pressure may become dysfunctional. When the
family is dysfunctional or there is severe stress in the family, it will often be the most vulnerable member of that
household who is affected—apart from the children, it is the companion animals. It was reported in the paper
that the RSPCA thinks that the increase in cruelty cases is directly attributable to the struggle of people having to
make ends meet. That is a very sad indictment and probably not a direct outcome that this government ever
[ASSEMBLY — Wednesday, 22 October 2014]
7783
thought it would have. Not only is the government putting significant cost-of-living pressures on families, but
also that pressure is flowing on to children. Housing affordability is at an all-time low and there is an inability to
pay bills. The member for Albany mentioned the hardship utility grant scheme. That is not enough. There are
queues of people waiting to get access to the HUG scheme. People needing financial counselling are not able to
get it because of the queues and there has been a reduction in the amounts put into these services. At the very
bottom of that chain, the companion animals in those households are being made to suffer. The government
funds the RSPCA. Its funding is a significant amount, to me, but in terms of the overall budget it is not huge.
The RSPCA had to finance the ongoing care, for instance, of 108 cats that were taken out of a house in my
electorate a year ago. I understand that the cost of maintaining those animals while a court case is pending is
$1 million or more. If one starts to think about why this government has not addressed changes to, for instance,
the Animal Welfare Act that would allow the RSPCA to deal with the animals by fostering or re-homing them or
doing something differently when a court case is being prosecuted, this government will have to face up to the
fact —
Mr V.A. Catania: I can see how this is part of what we are talking about.
Ms L.L. BAKER: The member does, and it is. I hope I have clearly made the link between income levels and
exclusion and poverty in households and how the most vulnerable in the household may not be a person; it may
be a cat or a dog. The RSPCA is struggling to meet a $1 million-odd cost to keep 100 cats simply because
a court case has not been allowed to progress and the Animal Welfare Act is in urgent need of attention. The act
is due for a review. In my view, the government is badly dragging its feet on this, and is putting probably one of
the most respected charities in the state in a very difficult position. I think the RSPCA has around
100 000 supporters who contribute directly or indirectly to it. I challenge anybody to come up with an
organisation with that many supporters. If one went out and called for a public cry of who supports the RSPCA,
I think that number would double or triple very quickly. The iconic agency charged with the responsibility for
the welfare of particularly companion animals in our society is being forced to use its valuable assets to fund a
failing in the Animal Welfare Act. I am not particularly proud of that because the Animal Welfare Act was
reviewed in 2002 by a Labor government. However, when one finds holes in policies and legislation, they must
be fixed. It does not take a Rhodes Scholar to figure out that this one should have been fixed a long time ago.
I do not know why the Minister for Agriculture and Food is dragging his heels on fixing the hole in this law, but
I do know that the longer it takes, the more strain organisations such as the RSPCA will come under.
That is the context of my contribution: we need to be extraordinarily careful about the services provided, the
funding that has been cut from these services and the increasing level of vulnerability in households in all our
communities—not just mum, dad and all the kids, but also their pets. It is really important that all these issues
are looked at. Certainly, it is something that is increasingly an issue in my electorate, and I am sure it is always
an issue in all our electorates.
MS R. SAFFIOTI (West Swan) [6.12 pm]: I am not able to make a long contribution, tonight, but I want
contribute to debate on the following motion —
That this house condemns the Barnett government for the impact its mismanagement of the state budget
is having on seniors and vulnerable people in our community.
Over this and the previous year, the government has focused on the wrong priorities, which has had a significant
impact on the most vulnerable in our society, particularly our seniors. The chaos and dysfunction that is now the
hallmark of this government—today’s announcement of the shambolic local government reform is the latest
chaotic example—is the result of a government that has mismanaged the economy and finances and is unable to
provide the assistance and care needed by the most vulnerable in society. I remember when the government was
elected, with its first couple of budgets, it talked about its focus on all in society—it would assist everybody.
That rhetoric does not match reality. The government has focused on some bizarre deals with the private sector,
undermining the state’s finances and creating budget pressure that has seen it in the most recent and prior
budgets cutting funding to seniors and impacting on the most vulnerable. Millions of dollars have been wasted
on bizarre and costly deals with the private sector. We have seen the Pelago Apartment development, in which
28 apartments are sitting empty, while the state government pays nearly $900 000 a year in rent to major
Liberal Party and National Party donors. We have seen the farce of the Allia Venue Management deal. We have
seen significant concessions on land at Elizabeth Quay and on the Burswood peninsula given to multinational,
billion-dollar companies. We have seen a government completely lose its way. Although the government started
with rhetoric about trying to look after all, it has fallen back to form and its policies are significantly impacting
upon society’s most vulnerable.
There is no better example of this than the massive increases in the cost of essential services and cost-of-living
pressures since 2008. The cost of household bills has increased by $2 500 since the Barnett government came to
power. I have said on numerous occasions that this government has failed to look at the collective impact on
a household of all its increases to charges. Remember that many of these households are on fixed incomes,
7784
[ASSEMBLY — Wednesday, 22 October 2014]
whether by way of pension or self-funded retirement. We have seen massive increases to charges with massive
pressure being put on these seniors and families. Electricity prices have gone up by 77 per cent and water prices
have gone up by 90 per cent. I reiterate—similar to the local government reform process, the government has
been playing around with the issue of electricity prices for about six years. It has done nothing to hold down
costs and embarked on a bizarre agenda that no-one in the private sector supports, but reflects the personal
prejudice of the Premier. When government members talk about the potential savings to come from remerging
Synergy and Verve, they ignore the costs. Similarly, with the local government reform process, government
members talk about some sort of hypothetical saving of $50 million over 10 years, as I recall. We all know that
significant mergers or forced amalgamations are costly. All those councils need new merged accommodation and
signage—every process needs to be changed and amalgamated. The costs of that process will far outweigh the
savings that the government claimed today it would make. All the bizarre and erratic decisions of this
government—particularly those made by the Premier—and its complete mismanagement have resulted in an
unwinding of finances and the government impacting upon the most vulnerable.
I look at car registration. By cutting and then moving to abolish the family subsidy, the government’s policy is
impacting those with cheaper vehicles more significantly because the rate of increase is far more significant the
lower the value of the vehicle’s registration.
The government has basically created a system whereby the biggest increases to the cost of living are felt by the
people who can afford it least. The government has made other cuts to seniors’ benefits. I think the key issue
outlined by many of my colleagues is the cut to the seniors rebate. The rebate has been cut from $245 to $123 for
couples and from $163 to $82 for singles. That cut will impact 306 000 seniors in Western Australia. Seniors
have to deal with not only massive increases in cost of living and charges, but also a cut to the rebate that helps
people afford those massive increases.
Another significant cut that I find absolutely extraordinary is the one to the security rebate. The Liberal Party
promised $15 million over four years towards a seniors’ safety and security rebate. However, it has forecast and
is delivering only $3 million over the next three years. It has changed the rules to make it virtually impossible to
access the rebate. The new eligibility rules mean that to access the rebate, seniors must have previously claimed
the rebate and been burgled since January 2014. It is one of the most bizarre policy changes I have seen.
Someone has to have been burgled before they can get the rebate. Whenever I tell that to people who come into
the office, they find it absolutely extraordinary. Someone has to have claimed the rebate before and been burgled
to claim it now. Up to June this year, only four people received the rebate, compared with February to June the
previous year when 2 709 seniors received the rebate. Basically, the government has withdrawn the assistance
that would allow people to purchase equipment to make them feel safer at home.
The Abbott budget announced in May this year imposed a raft of mean and targeted cuts to rebates for seniors,
the most vulnerable people in our society, through the general practitioner tax and changes to the age and
deeming threshold in the pension indexation system and cuts to the seniors supplement, the education entry
payment, and the pensioner education supplement. Between the Barnett and Abbott governments, the most
vulnerable have been targeted. As I said, this is a result of a government that has completely lost its way in all
areas, including the economy. It has made sure that we are growing more slowly than is New South Wales—
a huge achievement! It has slowed the economy —
Mr P. Papalia: Sarcasm does not read well.
Ms R. SAFFIOTI: It does not read well. Sorry; that was sarcasm. The government has mismanaged some of
these projects so badly that our economic growth has now fallen behind that of New South Wales. The
government has lost its AAA credit rating.
I want to talk about the local government reform. The government is obsessed about lines on the map; this
government has no idea about community. I want to talk about the City of Vincent for a second. Why do people
go to the City of Vincent for a drink or something to eat? It is because of the atmosphere that is created by the
people and the place. The idea that a city is about lines on a map and putting a hospital here and potentially
a casino there and thinking that that is creating a place is contrary to all current thinking in urban planning. It is
opposite to everything. Why do people go to these places? It is because, normally, councils create vibrant places
for people to be. Including Vincent in the CBD would downgrade the role of the Vincent ratepayers, and it is an
extraordinarily stupid decision. There is no concept of people in that idea. Government members talk about
communities, but the government simply puts lines on a map and ignores what makes a place function. The
entire thought in urban planning is all about creating places. It is not about creating monuments, big glassy
towers, and saying, “Isn’t that shiny?” and everyone will go, such as with the concept of Elizabeth Quay. It is
about laneways and exciting and edgy experiences. It is not about —
Mr V.A. Catania interjected.
Ms R. SAFFIOTI: The member for North West Central will have an opportunity to comment.
[ASSEMBLY — Wednesday, 22 October 2014]
7785
Mr V.A. Catania: It is funny; when the Court government broke up the City of Perth back then, the
Labor Party’s argument was: this is disgraceful.
Ms R. SAFFIOTI: The member for North West Central was a member of the Labor Party then.
Mr V.A. Catania: You were arguing for the City of Perth not to be broken up; now you’re arguing for it not to
be reconstructed. Hopefully, that got in Hansard.
Ms R. SAFFIOTI: The member for North West Central was probably more active in the Labor Party then than
I was.
Several members interjected.
The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr P. Abetz): Members! Through the Chair, please.
Ms R. SAFFIOTI: The member for North West Central is right; the Liberal Party broke up the City of Perth
because it was too big and it was not achieving the goal. The member for North West Central confirmed through
his comments that significant change occurred under Richard Court, and that completely contradicts what the
Premier has said, which is that there has been no change for 100 years and that people have been talking about
creating bigger councils for 100 years. Every time this government changes something, it tells us that it has been
talking about it for 100 years. It has been talking about Elizabeth Quay, the Perth City Link and local
government reform for 100 years. It has not. What the government is doing today undermines innovation and
new cultural experiences.
I referred to the three paths. Councils in the western suburbs will not merge until a City of Perth act is passed
through this place, yet that will not happen because the Premier does not have the numbers. The reform in the
Premier’s backyard is subject to an act that the government does not have the numbers to pass. Some members
of the community are able to vote to stop change and the government has chosen areas—let us face it—where it
believes the no vote will not get up. Where the government believes a no vote would get up, such as in Vincent
or Bassendean, the government has proposed a boundary change. It does not allow the Dadour provision to kick
in for those areas within which we have a small but very passionate group against change. Where the
government believes Dadour will fail, it has said, “Yes, that is an amalgamation and we can trigger Dadour.”
Where it believes Dadour will get up, it has said, “That is a boundary change, not an amalgamation and the
Dadour provision does not kick in.” The Local Government Advisory Board recommended this, but any
self-respecting board would not have delivered such a corrupt and terrible process.
As I said, this government has completely lost its way. It started in 2008 by giving lip-service to protecting the
vulnerable. Over the last couple of years all we have seen are attacks on the vulnerable and seniors through
increases in the cost of living. The government is making it harder for seniors to live in our community.
MR R.S. LOVE (Moore) [6.30 pm]: I rise to contribute to the debate on the effects of the decisions of the
Liberal–National government on the lives of Western Australian seniors and pensioners. I would like to start by
saying a little about my electorate of Moore, which has living within in it a very large number of older Western
Australians. About two weeks after the seniors discount booklet was issued I had to apply for more copies of it,
which is a fair indication of how many seniors live in my electorate. I have now gone through two-and-a-bit
office allocations of the seniors discount booklet and I am still getting demands for it. The Country Age Pension
Fuel Card, which is supplied through the royalties for regions scheme, is also very popular in my electorate, and
many hundreds, if not thousands, of my constituents have access to that fuel card. They do not have access, in
the main, to a high level of public transport, although there are a couple of exceptions that I might mention later.
The fuel card helps to offset two things: firstly, the lack of subsidised public transport for pensioners in my
electorate; and, secondly, the higher cost of fuel in areas of my electorate, especially in the midwest, than in the
wheatbelt and Perth areas.
As many people have aged they have chosen to stay in the electorate of Moore, and they leave the electorate only
when the lack of aged-care facilities forces them to do so. The beauty of the Moore electorate, especially in the
coastal areas, continues to attract many retirees from further inland and the metropolitan area. They come to
settle in coastal communities such as Kalbarri, Dongara and Jurien Bay and also the communities along the
Gingin coast. Nearer to Perth, many seniors are also settling in the foothills of Chittering, especially in the
Maryville subdivisions, and in the foothills of Toodyay. Seniors are choosing to move to some of the less
expensive areas of the inland parts of my electorate, and I know a number of seniors who have moved to towns
such as Eneabba and Mowara in recent times to take advantage of cheaper housing and the facilities available
there, which they can access and which gives them a much better cost of living than elsewhere.
Some of the issues highlighted by the member for Butler, such as the lack of mental health services and other
health services that exist in areas on the outskirts of the metropolitan area, also manifest in the foothill areas
around the electorate of Moore, which shares a boundary with the electorates of Butler and Swan Hills. There is
a commonality of interest to try to get to the root cause of some of those problems, which have existed for many
7786
[ASSEMBLY — Wednesday, 22 October 2014]
years. Those issues are not new and have not been brought about by decisions in the last couple of years; they
have manifested themselves over decades.
One of the ways to address that in my electorate, at least, is through funding from royalties for regions. We have
heard members of the other side of the house question the value of royalties for regions to address the issues that
face seniors and pensioners in country areas. It has been said that royalties for regions is being used simply to
fund normal government functions and that it has not brought any benefits to the people of the electorates at all.
That is absolute rubbish! Royalties for regions is bringing a billion dollars a year into regional
Western Australia—money that would not have been available without that program—and it will continue to do
so into the future under the good guidance of the current Minister for Regional Development.
Some things that have benefited from royalties for regions in my electorate include the very recent funding of the
Wangaree Community Centre in Lancelin, which I and a member for Agricultural Region in the other place
Hon Martin Aldridge are due to open on 6 November. On 12 December I am also scheduled to open extensions
to the frail-aged lodge in Moora that received well over $2 million in royalties for regions funding to make that
extension possible to improve the lives of people in the central midlands area.
Other areas have also benefited from royalties for regions. Quite recently I accompanied the Minister for
Regional Development to Northhampton for the opening of the extensions to Pioneer Lodge, which again was
made possible from funding from royalties for regions. I recently opened the refurbished and rebuilt Eneabba
nursing post, which was completely destroyed by white ants in recent years but which, thanks to royalties for
regions and other sources of funding, has been restored and is enriching the lives of the people of Eneabba. It
also provides a vital service on Brand Highway, where there are no medical services between Dongara and
Gingin.
As I said before, there is not much in the way of public transport in the electorate of Moore. Along with the
member for Central Wheatbelt, I was very sad to see the threat to the AvonLink after a decision made a little over
a year ago. It was in fact royalties for regions funding that has helped the AvonLink run again into the future and
is leading to improved serves on the AvonLink. That service is very important for the many seniors who have
chosen to live in Toodyay, as well as other areas of the Avon Valley. I am sure that seniors will continue to
appreciate that service, and it would not be there without royalties for regions. There is no way that fact can be
ignored.
Mr V.A. Catania: It is welcomed by the other members there.
Mr R.S. LOVE: Yes, and with the great assistance of our upper house colleagues, the member for
Central Wheatbelt and I were able to secure that.
Mr P. Papalia: Your government cut it and now you are congratulating them.
Mr R.S. LOVE: I am congratulating royalties for regions, because we would not have been able to achieve that
without the assistance of royalties for regions funding.
Of course, royalties for regions has been instrumental in funding the Jurien Bay regional centre development
plan, which has funding of over $13 million to develop facilities in Jurien Bay. Royalties for regions also funded
the growth plan for that centre, which is a really great plan for the central coast. The plan highlights the need to
provide better services for seniors and it also highlights the need for the central coast areas of the electorate to
have centres of attraction and provide great services for aged people because the increase in population that has
occurred in that area is largely as a result of retirees deciding to move from Perth to the central coast. The growth
in movement of retirees will continue, and with that movement services will increase, which will result in
employment for the area and another boost of population as people fill the need for construction and the
provision of aged-care and other services that a new population brings with it.
As the member for Butler has pointed out, there are many service gaps in the areas outside of Perth. As I said,
I do not doubt that they exist in my electorate also but are being addressed one by one with the help of royalties
for regions funding slowly but surely—sometimes not quite so slowly, but very surely.
Palliative care is another area of great concern in my electorate to me and many seniors. An unfortunate aspect
of the geography of my electorate is that much of the palliative care service is provided in Perth and the
designated regional centre is Northam. The planning for the provision of healthcare services in the wheatbelt part
of my electorate seems to not address fully the needs of aged care and palliative care in my electorate. I have
been the member for Moore for only a little over a year, but on a number of occasions I have been called upon to
intervene in cases when people have not received adequate palliative care to make their lives comfortable.
Unfortunately, my intervention has not always been successful in getting that care to those people in time. I have
been involved in two very distressing cases of young men who passed away recently. They are examples of
where we need to make improvements in this area. In the case of both those young men, they have young adult
daughters who are very articulate and well educated women. One of them is a health professional herself. They
were not able to find the palliative care they needed for their loved ones, their fathers. They are assisting me in
[ASSEMBLY — Wednesday, 22 October 2014]
7787
addressing those issues with the Department of Health. One of the great problems is the fracturing between the
service planning and the service delivery that occurs in the electorate. Aged-care services are an unmet area of
need in many parts of the electorate. They are slowly being addressed. As I have said, the Moora situation has
been a shining light on how that can be changed, and Moora is turning itself into a centre of excellence in aged
care, and the care of its citizens right throughout their lives. Other areas, such as Northampton, are also working
hard in that area. However, the gaps that exist need to be addressed, and royalties for regions is one of the
instruments that will lead to that happening. These issues are not new; they have taken decades to manifest
themselves. There have been decades of government neglect of investment in my electorate and similar country
electorates, and royalties for regions is turning that around. It takes time, but it is making a huge difference.
The member for Maylands made the point that she felt that pensioners in country areas may be better off than
those in the city. I would not go so far as to say that about some aspects. Yes, there are safe and pleasant
environments for our seniors and pensioners in country areas, but the service gaps that I just identified are real,
and they impinge on the quality of life of seniors in the electorate. This government is addressing those issues,
although much remains to be done.
The member for West Swan was talking about local government, so I will raise that issue as well. When
a vulnerable person or an aged person is dealing with large regional groups such as health services, it is very
easy to fall through the cracks, as I have observed in the past year or so. One of the great institutions in country
areas giving comfort to and providing services for the elderly is the local governments. When local governments
service a large number of communities, the individual attention to those communities drops away. Typically,
local governments, especially those comprising only a single town, have a much greater connection to their
seniors, and they invest a much greater amount of their time and resources in making sure that seniors’ lives are
comfortable. It is not just a matter of resources; it is a matter of knowing and being in touch with the community.
That is one of the great costs borne by communities when local governments are forced to amalgamate, as we
have seen in other jurisdictions. This is one of the reasons why the National Party would oppose such measures
in regional areas.
In wrapping up, consideration of the actions of the government, at least in my area, must take into account the
great investments that have been made by royalties for regions and the great steps that have been taken in
improving the lives of pensioners and seniors in my electorate.
MR P. PAPALIA (Warnbro) [6.44 pm]: I stand to support the motion that this house condemn the
Barnett government for the impact its mismanagement of the state budget is having on seniors and vulnerable
people in our community. I will reflect for a moment on the premise of the motion. The motion is not about some
slogan the National Party managed to milk for elections in 2008 and 2013. It is not about that. It is not about
whether one individual electorate might have benefited inappropriately or disproportionately from one
government policy or another. It is actually about whether the Barnett government is doing damage to the social
fabric of Western Australia, and thereby hurting and inflicting pain on seniors and other vulnerable people. That
is the premise of this motion. I would urge any speaker following me, if they do not agree with that, to address
that premise. Do not echo slogans from a handout or flyer that has been printed by the party office and mailed
out for free, about the gains of the party being part of a notional government that it rails against at one point and
commends at another, for such things as taking away a rail service to York and then returning it. The
National Party condemns the government at one point for taking away the service, and then commends itself
a month or so later for getting the service back. Members should actually address the premise of the motion.
It is undeniable that the Barnett government, sadly, is not doing what conservative governments normally do,
and what I would normally criticise it for—that is, just sitting there occupying the benches and enjoying the
trappings of office. That would be okay by comparison. If all members opposite were doing was immersing
themselves in some sort of stupor and enjoying the trappings of office, and were guilty of what Paul Keating
accused the Menzies era of doing—embarking on not very much for a couple of decades—that would be okay in
comparison to what is happening. We are seeing serious damage being done through the results of
mismanagement and chaotic attempts to be seen to be doing something. The loss of the AAA credit rating has
a consequence. Soaring debt has a consequence. The inability to rein in growth in expenditure has
a consequence. We are starting to see it now. It has been going on for some time in a lot of hidden areas, but it is
becoming very stark for the seniors in our community. If any members on the other side of the house do not
believe seniors have been impacted by the policies of this government and of the federal government in their
attacks on seniors, they are deluding themselves. The federal government cannot cut rebates for pensioners, and
then pass the cuts on to the states, resulting in cuts to rebates from $245 to $123 for couples, and from $163 to
$82 for singles, without having an impact. Electricity prices cannot be raised by over 77 per cent, water rates by
90 per cent —
Mr C.D. Hatton interjected.
7788
[ASSEMBLY — Wednesday, 22 October 2014]
Mr P. PAPALIA: There is some sort of noise coming from the far end of the chamber. I think it is the member
for Balcatta, and I welcome his interjection. What did he say in relation to electricity prices that have gone up
77 per cent during the time of the Barnett government? What pearl of wisdom did the member want to share?
Mr C.D. Hatton: You did nothing in your term of government to make it cost effective, or to reach cost
realisation. All it did was spiral up, with government funds going straight into it. You didn’t get the money back.
You didn’t increase the cost effectiveness.
Mr P. PAPALIA: The member will be aware that governments have a choice of priorities. If the government
has a choice of priorities that has as its central focus keeping household costs at a reasonable and affordable level
for those who are vulnerable in the community, such as pensioners and other people on fixed incomes, it must
take into account things like soaring electricity costs, massive increases to water rates and increases to car
registration fees. We have to prioritise expenditure and costs. The government should say to itself, “Our priority
is to make the cost of living reasonable for people on fixed incomes; therefore, we will not embark upon a whole
raft of unfunded, uncosted projects intended to hand some sort of bizarre future legacy to an individual who will
retire before the next election.” It should not do that because its intent should be to focus on providing
a reasonable cost of living for people who are in vulnerable circumstances, such as pensioners. If the government
has a different policy decision and it does not prioritise keeping the cost of living reasonable for people on fixed
incomes, I understand that. I concede that is a normal process and a normal approach of a conservative
government. I understand that that is the approach of the Barnett government. Clearly, the government does not
prioritise making the cost of living reasonable for people such as pensioners and people on fixed incomes. That
is fine. The government should not expect me to agree that that is a good policy.
I will go on and address more specifically other vulnerable people in the community. I think the way seniors
have been treated by the Barnett government has been atrocious. It has clearly been demonstrated that they have
been taken for granted. I think that is also the case with the Abbott government. I suggest to any senior out there
who might read this speech in Hansard or hear my comments that they consider how they have been treated by
the government. They should not look at what it says; they should look at what it does. These people know from
the bills that are coming in the letterbox that the government does not care about them. The government assumes
that these people will vote for it anyway. I do not think that is the case. The response by seniors across Western
Australia to the Premier of this state has been demonstrated in a consistent fashion in a series of polls that shows
he is the single most unpopular Premier of Western Australia in the history of Newspoll. Beyond that, he has
become the single most unpopular leader in the nation.
Mr C.D. Hatton: Which polls are you looking at?
Mr P. PAPALIA: I hear another noise. There is more noise and more interjections. The member for Balcatta
might want to check a thing called net disapproval, which in the entire history of Newspoll has never registered
such a significant negative for a Premier at any time. I am not talking about disapproval during an election.
Point of Order
Dr A.D. BUTI: There needs to be some consistency here, Mr Acting Speaker. The member for Warnbro has
taken some interjections, but the member for Balcatta thinks he has the right to interject. Could you please bring
him to order, because that is what you do to members on our side.
The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr P. Abetz): There is no point of order because the member for Warnbro
continues to respond.
Mr C.D. HATTON: The member invited me to interject.
The ACTING SPEAKER: That is correct. There is no point of order. Member for Warnbro, if you do not want
interjections, please direct yourself through the Chair.
Debate Resumed
Mr P. PAPALIA: For the benefit of the Chair, I welcomed the member for Balcatta’s interjections some
10 minutes ago. I know there is a lag down that part of the chamber, but I will push on.
The ACTING SPEAKER: I encourage you to direct your remarks through the Chair.
Mr P. PAPALIA: I was about to push on and depart from the comments I was making about the appalling
treatment of seniors by the Barnett government. They know how they have been treated; that has been reflected
in the polls. It will be consistently reflected in the polls. This Premier is the single most unpopular leader in the
country. He is absolutely and undeniably the most unpopular Premier in the history of Newspoll at any time
during, before and after elections.
Several members interjected.
The ACTING SPEAKER: Members!
[ASSEMBLY — Wednesday, 22 October 2014]
7789
Mr P. PAPALIA: I wanted to focus on another vulnerable section of the community, which can clearly be
measured as an indicator of the impact on the vulnerable. It is a field that I often discuss because I have the
shadow portfolio. The population in our prisons reflects the impact that the government is having on the
vulnerable. When I speak of the vulnerable in this case, I am talking about the poor, women and Aboriginal
people. I am not talking about serious offenders. Despite the good humour of the interaction between me and
those opposite that was conducted earlier—quite frankly, I am serious about those comments, although
I welcome the good humour of our exchange—I am serious about this subject, as members know. It is my belief
that the Barnett government, which those opposite are all part of, is responsible for having incarcerated more
poor Aboriginal people and mentally ill people than any government in the history of this state.
Mr V.A. Catania: How’s that so?
Mr P. PAPALIA: As I said, the member knows I am serious about this.
Mr V.A. Catania: I want to know. How is that so?
Mr P. PAPALIA: At the moment we have more people in our prison system than we have had at any time in
history. I think there are 5 368 people in our prison system, to date. I will check that figure. By virtue of the fact
that the percentage of people in our prison system who are Aboriginal has remained unchanged throughout the
term of this government—it is almost identical to the previous government at 40 per cent—by definition, there
are more Aboriginal people. It has increased dramatically. I am not just making it up; I get the statistics through
asking questions of the government. The growth in the prison muster from 1 June 2008 to two days ago was
43 per cent. The growth of the muster as a consequence of the percentage of Aboriginal people remaining
unchanged means that significantly more Aboriginal people are in the system. That concerns me, and I know it
concerns the government—it concerns everyone in this place. What really concerns me is my assessment of the
composition of the prison muster. It remains unchanged from when I first started asking these questions in early
2009 to the most recent time I asked the same questions. The breakdown of the people going into prison was
confirmed by an observation made by the Chief Justice of Western Australia in mid-2010, who said that if there
were characteristics of the increase in the prison muster, they could be characterised as being people who are
economically disadvantaged, as evidenced through their incapacity to pay fines; Aboriginal people; mentally ill
people; and people who have offended at the lower end of the spectrum. That is not me saying that; that was an
observation of the Chief Justice , who is the same Chief Justice that we have today. If I sent him the same
statistical breakdown that I received from asking about all those categories and what percentage of the overall
population they represent, it has remained unchanged yet the population has increased dramatically.
Dr K.D. Hames: If we formed the view to be tougher on crime, surely whoever does the crime will end up there.
Mr P. PAPALIA: Was the minister not listening to what I said about the composition of the overall makeup of
the prison system? Those who have offended at the lower end of the spectrum—those who are incapable of
paying those fines—are economically disadvantaged, as indicated through their incapacity to pay fines. Does the
minister know how much that figure has grown under his government? I do. Note to self: go and have a look.
Check out some of the questions on notice that I have been asking of the minister. There are a number of fine
defaulters who are in prison solely for the purpose of paying off fines, not because they have done something
else. I have encountered people in my own electorate who might get a $68 parking fine.
Debate adjourned, pursuant to standing orders.
House adjourned at 7.00 pm
__________
7790
[ASSEMBLY — Wednesday, 22 October 2014]
QUESTIONS ON NOTICE
Questions and answers are as supplied to Hansard.
MINISTER FOR PLANNING’S PORTFOLIOS — 2013 ABORIGINAL BUSINESS CONTRACTS
2954.
Mr B.S. Wyatt to the Minister for Planning; Culture and the Arts:
I refer to the announced changes to the Government’s procurement policies which exempt Aboriginal
Enterprises from the Open and Effective Competition policy, announced by the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs
and Minister for Finance on 9 November 2012 and in relation to these changes, for every agency under the
jurisdiction of the Minister and for the period 9 November 2012 to 8 November 2013, I ask:
(a)
what was the name of each Aboriginal business contracted;
(b)
what services did the business provide to the agency;
(c)
what was the term of the contract; and
(d)
what was the total value of the contract to the Aboriginal business?
Mr J.H.D. Day replied:
(a)–(d) Please refer to Legislative Assembly Question on Notice 2949.
MINISTER FOR MENTAL HEALTH’S PORTFOLIOS — 2013 ABORIGINAL BUSINESS CONTRACTS
2956.
Mr B.S. Wyatt to the Parliamentary Secretary representing the Minister for Mental Health;
Disability Services; Child Protection:
I refer to the announced changes to the Government’s procurement policies which exempt Aboriginal
Enterprises from the Open and Effective Competition policy, announced by the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs
and Minister for Finance on 9 November 2012 and in relation to these changes, for every agency under the
jurisdiction of the Minister and for the period 9 November 2012 to 8 November 2013, I ask:
(a)
what was the name of each Aboriginal business contracted;
(b)
what services did the business provide to the agency;
(c)
what was the term of the contract; and
(d)
what was the total value of the contract to the Aboriginal business?
Ms A.R. Mitchell replied:
(a)–(d) Please refer to Legislative Assembly Question on Notice 2949.
MINISTER FOR PLANNING’S PORTFOLIOS — 2014 ABORIGINAL BUSINESS CONTRACTS
2971.
Mr B.S. Wyatt to the Minister for Planning; Culture and the Arts:
I refer to the announced changes to the Government’s procurement policies which exempt Aboriginal
Enterprises from the Open and Effective Competition policy, announced by the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs
and Minister for Finance on 9 November 2012 and in relation to these changes, for every agency under the
jurisdiction of the Minister and from 9 November 2013 up to 18 September 2014, I ask:
(a)
what was the name of each Aboriginal business contracted;
(b)
what services did the business provide to the agency;
(c)
what was the term of the contract; and
(d)
what was the total value of the contract to the Aboriginal Business?
Mr J.H.D. Day replied:
(a)–(d) Please refer to Legislative Assembly Question on Notice 2966.
MINISTER FOR MENTAL HEALTH’S PORTFOLIOS — 2014 ABORIGINAL BUSINESS CONTRACTS
2973.
Mr B.S. Wyatt to the Parliamentary Secretary representing the Minister for Mental Health;
Disability Services; Child Protection:
I refer to the announced changes to the Government’s procurement policies which exempt Aboriginal
Enterprises from the Open and Effective Competition policy, announced by the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs
and Minister for Finance on 9 November 2012 and in relation to these changes, for every agency under the
jurisdiction of the Minister and from 9 November 2013 up to 18 September 2014, I ask:
[ASSEMBLY — Wednesday, 22 October 2014]
(a)
what was the name of each Aboriginal business contracted;
(b)
what services did the business provide to the agency;
(c)
what was the term of the contract; and
(d)
what was the total value of the contract to the Aboriginal Business?
7791
Ms A.R. Mitchell replied:
(a)–(d) Please refer to Legislative Assembly Question on Notice 2966.
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH — BAYULU HALL
2984.
Ms J. Farrer to the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs:
I refer to the Bayulu Hall building located at the Bayulu Community which the Department of Aboriginal Affairs
has responsibility for and ask:
(a)
why is this building not secured to prevent access;
(b)
is any of the building material of this building made of asbestos;
(c)
is the Minister aware that this building is adjacent to the local school and children play daily in the
debris;
(d)
when will the Minister action securing of this building; and
(e)
when will the Minister action removal of this dangerous structure?
Dr K.D. Hames replied:
(a)
The Bayulu Community is located on Crown Reserve 35197 which is held under Management Order to
the Aboriginal Lands Trust. The Bayulu Community Incorporated holds a lease over the whole of the
Reserve with some areas subleased to other bodies. It is the responsibility of the Balyulu Community to
manage the infrastructure on their lease to ensure that the site does not pose a risk. An inspection has
been initiated to ensure that the site is secured.
(b)
Refer to (a).
(c)
Any risk to children posed by asbestos from damaged buildings is unacceptable. It is important that the
leaseholders ensure that the site is secure while the matter is being assessed. Discussions are being held
with the leaseholders regarding site remediation as a priority.
(d)–(e) Refer to (c).
DEPARTMENT OF ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS — BAYULU HALL
2985.
Ms J. Farrer to the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs:
I refer to the Asbestos being dumped in the Bayulu Community which the Department of Aboriginal Affairs has
responsibility for and ask:
(a)
is the Department aware of the situation in Bayulu Community;
(b)
why has this issue not been addressed;
(c)
is the Minister aware that children play daily in the Asbestos debris; and
(d)
when will the Minister action remediation of Asbestos debris throughout Bayulu Community?
Dr K.D. Hames replied:
(a)
Yes
(b)
The Bayulu Community is located on Crown Reserve 35197 which is held under Management Order to
the Aboriginal Lands Trust. The Bayulu Community Incorporated holds a lease over the whole of the
Reserve with some areas subleased to other bodies. It is the responsibility of the Balyulu Community to
manage the infrastructure on their lease to ensure that the site does not pose a risk. An inspection has
been initiated to ensure that the site is secured.
(c)
Any risk to children posed by asbestos from damaged buildings is unacceptable. Discussions are being
held with the leaseholders regarding site remediation as a priority.
(d)
Refer to (c).
ABORIGINAL LANDS TRUST — LAND LOCATION AND TITLE
2989.
Mr B.S. Wyatt to the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs:
I refer to the Aboriginal Lands Trust’s (ALT) STRATEGIC FRAMEWORK 2012–2014 document, and I ask:
7792
[ASSEMBLY — Wednesday, 22 October 2014]
(a)
how many pieces of land are held by the ALT;
(b)
what are the names and locations of each piece of land;
(c)
how many hectares of land in total is there held by the ALT;
(d)
how many people live on land held by the ALT;
(e)
how many pieces of aboriginal land, held by the ALT, have been divested each year for the past
six years;
(f)
what is the name and location of each piece of land which has been divested; and
(g)
what was the nature of the title of each of the divested properties?
Dr K.D. Hames replied:
(a)
Since the launch of the Department of Aboriginal Affairs’ Strategic Framework in 2012, the
Department of Aboriginal Affairs has undertaken a review of community land holdings, which has
identified 312 parcels of land held by the Aboriginal Lands Trust.
(b)
Please refer to Tabled Paper Attachment A.
[See tabled paper no 2317.]
(c)
24,368,779.8 hectares are held by the Aboriginal Lands Trust.
(d)
Approximately 10,000 people.
(e)
20.
(f)–(g) Please refer to Tabled Paper Attachment B.
[See tabled paper no 2317.]
ABORIGINAL LANDS TRUST — CURRENT COMMUNITIES
2991.
Mr B.S. Wyatt to the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs:
I refer to the Aboriginal Lands Trust’s (ALT) STRATEGIC FRAMEWORK 2012–2014 document, and I ask:
(a)
what are the names of the 177 communities on ALT land;
(b)
what is the population of each community;
(c)
what local council structure is set up in each of the 177 communities; and
(d)
what representation is in each of the 177 communities for the people of the community to reach out to
state government?
Dr K.D. Hames replied:
(a)–(b) Since the launch of the Department of Aboriginal Affairs’ Strategic Framework in 2012, the
Department of Aboriginal Affairs has undertaken a review of community land holdings, which has
identified 184 remote Aboriginal communities and Aboriginal town based reserves located on the
Aboriginal Lands Trust estate.
The Tabled Paper attached lists both remote Aboriginal communities and town based reserves that are
either occupied permanently or seasonally and have part or all of their land located on land that
comprises the Aboriginal Lands Trust estate. This figure is higher than the previously
estimated 177 communities due to reclassification of some locations from abandoned to seasonal
(occupied for less than nine months of the year) and improvements of land tenure data for the locations.
[See tabled paper no 2318.]
(c)
For communities located on leased Aboriginal Lands Trust land, the governance structure is either an
incorporated body under the Corporations (Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander) Act 2006
(Commonwealth), or and incorporated body under the Associations Incorporations Act 1987 (State).
(d)
Each incorporated body has a board of directors or council through which community members can
reach out to State government.
ABORIGINAL LANDS TRUST — UNOCCUPIED COMMUNITIES
2992.
Mr B.S. Wyatt to the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs:
I refer to the Aboriginal Lands Trust’s (ALT) STRATEGIC FRAMEWORK 2012–2014 document, and I ask:
(a)
what are the names of the 31 unoccupied communities;
[ASSEMBLY — Wednesday, 22 October 2014]
(b)
what are the locations of the 31 unoccupied communities;
(c)
why are each of the 31 communities unoccupied;
(d)
what plans are in place for the utilization of each of the 31 unoccupied communities;
(e)
what are the names of the 29 base reserves;
(f)
what is the location of each of the 29 base reserves;
(g)
how are each of the 29 base reserve lands being utilized; and
(h)
what plans are in place for future use of the 29 base reserve lands?
7793
Dr K.D. Hames replied:
(a)–(b) Since the launch of the Department of Aboriginal Affairs’ Strategic Framework in 2012, the
Department of Aboriginal Affairs has undertaken a review of community land holdings, which has
identified 12 unoccupied Remote Aboriginal Communities and 3 unoccupied Aboriginal Town Based
Reserves located on the Aboriginal Lands Trust estate. Please refer to Tabled Paper Attachment A.
[See tabled paper no 2319.]
(c)
The reasons why a community is unoccupied vary, but would include factors such as remoteness, access
difficulty, and cultural reasons.
(d)
The State Government is currently considering options for the future use of communities and
Town Based Reserves.
(e)–(f) Please refer to Tabled Paper Attachment B.
[See tabled paper no 2319.]
(g)
26 of the Town Based Reserves are occupied. 3 are unoccupied.
(h)
Refer to (d).
ABORIGINAL LANDS TRUST — NATIVE TITLE AGREEMENTS AND POLICIES
2993.
Mr B.S. Wyatt to the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs:
I refer to the Aboriginal Lands Trust’s (ALT) STRATEGIC FRAMEWORK 2012–2014 document, and I ask what
progress has been made in terms of the “State proceeding with a number of native title settlements which require
the development of government indigenous land use agreements and strategic land use policies”?
Dr K.D. Hames replied:
The Aboriginal Lands Trust’s Strategic Framework 2012–2014 states that the “The State is proceeding with
a number of native title settlements which requires the development of Indigenous Land Use Agreements and
a strategic land use policy.
The Department of Premier and Cabinet has completed a number of negotiations that involve Indigenous Land
Use Agreements (ILUA), not only those related to the divestment of land held by the Aboriginal Lands Trust and
not only tied to the resolution of native title claims. These include, for example:
Six ILUAs that form the core of the South West Settlement and will provide the authority for the
implementation of the State’s offer in return for the surrender of native title rights.
The Esperance Nyungar native title consent determination and ILUA which provided the native title
holders with a significant set of benefits to assist long-term land development and economic
independence.
A series of ILUAs linked with the Kimberley Science and Conservation Strategy to validate the creation
of new national parks and provide native title holders with a sustainable partnership in conservation
management,
An ILUA between the WA Government and the Kurama Marthudunera and Yaburara and Coastal
Mardudhunera people for the preservation of coastal access in the Pilbara, and
An ILUA between the WA Government and the Ngarluma Aboriginal Corporation (registered native
title body corporate) for the acquisition of land for the Anketell Port, Infrastructure Corridor and
Industrial Estate.
The development of relevant strategic land use policies includes the following:
DPC and DAA jointly coordinate the Native Title and Cultural Heritage Interagency Reference Group
which involves a wide cross-section of government agencies in regular exchanges of information about
the management of native title and Aboriginal heritage.
7794
[ASSEMBLY — Wednesday, 22 October 2014]
DPC, the DAA Heritage Section and the Department of Mines and Petroleum (DMP) jointly convene
quarterly meetings with resource industry groups to discuss industry practices related to native title and
Aboriginal heritage.
DPC convenes the Strategic Land Initiatives Group (SLIG) to assist government agencies to address
native title and heritage issues for major government planning and infrastructure development.
DPC has produced a series of guides to assist government agencies to comply with the Commonwealth
Native Title Act 1993 and the WA Aboriginal Heritage Act 1972. These include the Due Diligence
Guidelines for Aboriginal Cultural Heritage.
DPC, DoL, DMP and DSD are involved in the development of a Multi-Land Use Planning Guide for
government.
DPC and other land management agencies have jointly contributed to various submissions to the
Commonwealth Government, including the Productivity Commission, to illustrate the impact of the
Native Title Act 1993 on productivity in Western Australia.
DPC coordinates State Government input to the Native Title Ministers Meeting agendas.
ABORIGINAL LANDS TRUST — TOWN BASED RESERVE PROJECT
2994.
Mr B.S. Wyatt to the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs:
I refer to the Aboriginal Lands Trust’s (ALT) STRATEGIC FRAMEWORK 2012–2014 document, and I ask:
(a)
where is the ALT in terms of completing their “Town Based Reserve” project;
(b)
who is heading up this project;
(c)
is there a committee of individuals;
(d)
if yes to (d), who is on the committee;
(e)
how often do they meet;
(f)
what dates has the committee met over the past two years;
(g)
what progress has been made towards the completion of the project; and
(h)
what is the final goal of the project?
Dr K.D. Hames replied:
(a)
The Aboriginal Lands Trust has been working with key stakeholders to further develop future use
options for Town Based Reserves. The State Government is currently considering options for the future
use of Town Based Reserves.
(b)
The Aboriginal Affairs Coordinating Committee Sub Committee on Regional and Remote Communities
is leading this project.
(c)
Yes. Refer to (b).
(d)
Departments of Housing, Aboriginal Affairs, Education, Health, Treasury, Premier and Cabinet, Local
Government and Communities, Planning, Regional Development, Lands, Sport and Recreation,
Training and Workforce Development, Police, Western Australian Aboriginal Advisory Council,
Western Australian Aboriginal Education and Training Council.
(e)
As required.
(f)
12 July 2013; 19 August 2013; 6 November 2013; 4 December 2013.
(g)–(h) Please refer to (a).
ABORIGINAL LANDS TRUST — NATIVE TITLE SETTLEMENTS PROJECT
2998.
Mr B.S. Wyatt to the Minister representing the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs:
I refer to the Aboriginal Lands Trust’s (ALT) STRATEGIC FRAMEWORK 2012–2014 document, and I ask:
(a)
where is the ALT in terms of completing their “Native Title Settlements” project;
(b)
what existing native title priorities are divestments being aligned;
(c)
what future native title priorities are divestments being aligned;
(d)
what agreements have been made; and
(e)
with whom have these agreements been made?
[ASSEMBLY — Wednesday, 22 October 2014]
7795
Dr K.D. Hames replied:
(a)
The Land, Approvals and Native Title Unit (LANTU) of the Department of Premier and Cabinet has
completed all negotiations with the South West Aboriginal Land and Sea Council and, should the
South West Settlement be authorised by native title holders, up to 26 freehold properties and 34 Crown
reserves will be included in the Settlement.
(b)
Wherever possible, LANTU is including ALT land in negotiations attached to consent determination
agreements. Current negotiations include:
Support for the transfer of what were formerly ALT farm holdings to the Esperance Nyungar
native title holders as part of the consent determination and Indigenous Land Use Agreement
finalised in 2013;
The inclusion of all ALT reserves in Fitzroy Crossing in a proposed Bunuba consent
determination and ILUA;
The inclusion of ALT land as part of the development of an ILUA with the Balanggarra native
title holders which will also underwrite Indigenous jobs funded by the Kimberley Science and
Conservation Strategy;
The inclusion of ALT land in other ILUA negotiations in the East Kimberley with native title
holding groups, also linked to the Kimberley Science and Conservation Strategy; and
Inconclusive consultations about the divestment of ALT holdings with the Miriuwung
Gajerrong, Ngaanyatjarra and Gooniyandi native title holders.
(c)
The Departments of Housing, Aboriginal Affairs and Regional Development have been working with
key stakeholders to further develop future use options for remote communities and town based reserves
in Western Australia which may in some circumstances facilitate the divestment of ALT land. The State
Government is currently considering these options.
(d)
The Department of Aboriginal Affairs and the Aboriginal Lands Trust have also entered into
consultations about the divestment of ALT independent of the native title process or the Kimberley
Science and Conservation Strategy.
(e)
Where relevant, LANTU will continue to link the divestment of ALT land to native title settlements,
however, not all claims have ALT land holdings. LANTU’s ILUA strategy includes the provision of
Crown land holdings other than ALT land in some claim settlement agreements.
__________